Document of The World Bank · Document of The World Bank. ... ADT Annual Daily Traffic ... Orlin M. Dikov Mohammed Dalil Essakali ICR Team Leader: Rakesh Tripathi

Document of The World Bank

Report No: ICR287

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (IBRD-48650)

ON A

LOAN

IN THE AMOUNT OF EURO 90.0 MILLION (US$ 122.5 MILLION EQUIVALENT)

TO THE

REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA

FOR A

ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE REHABILITATION PROJECT

December 16, 2013

Sustainable Development Department Central Europe and the Baltic Countries Europe and Central Asia

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

(Exchange Rate Effective July 29th, 2013)

Currency Unit = Bulgarian Lev (BGN) BGN 1.47761 = US$ 1

US$ 0.676782 = BGN 1

FISCAL YEAR January 1 – December 31

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ADT Annual Daily Traffic CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis CPS Country Partnership Strategy EIRR Economic Internal Rate of Return EMP Environmental Management Plan EU European Union HDM-4 Highway Development and Management Model ICR Implementation Completion Report IRI International Roughness Index ISR Implementation Status Report JASPERS Joint Assistance to Support Projects in European Regions MRD Ministry of Regional Development MS Moderately Satisfactory MU Moderately Unsatisfactory OPRD Operational Program for Regional Development OPT Operational Program for Transport PAD Project Appraisal Document PBC Performance Based Contracts PDO Project Development Objective RIA Road Infrastructure Agency RMS Road Management System SIL Special Investment Loan TEN-T Trans European Network - Transport VOC Vehicle Operating Cost

Vice President: Laura Tuck, ECA VP Country Director: Mamta Murthi, ECCU5 Sector Manager: Juan Gaviria, ECSTR

Project Team Leader: Orlin M. Dikov, ECSTR ICR Team Leader: Rakesh Tripathi, ECSTR

COUNTRY Bulgaria

Project Name Road Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project

CONTENTS

Data Sheet A. Basic Information B. Key Dates C. Ratings Summary D. Sector and Theme Codes E. Bank Staff F. Results Framework Analysis G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs H. Restructuring I. Disbursement Graph

1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design ............................................... 1 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes .............................................. 5 3. Assessment of Outcomes .......................................................................................... 11 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome ......................................................... 14 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ..................................................... 16 6. Lessons Learned ....................................................................................................... 17 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners .......... 18 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing .......................................................................... 19 Annex 2. Outputs by Component ................................................................................. 20 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis ................................................................. 22 Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes ............ 26 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results ........................................................................... 27 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results ................................................... 28 Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR ..................... 29 Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders ....................... 46 Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents ...................................................................... 47

MAP

A. Basic Information

Country: Bulgaria Project Name: Road Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project

Project ID: P099894 L/C/TF Number(s): IBRD-48650

ICR Date: 08/22/2013 ICR Type: Core ICR

Lending Instrument: SIL Borrower: The Republic of Bulgaria

Original Total Commitment:

USD 122.50M Disbursed Amount: USD 103.38M

Revised Amount: USD 122.50M

Environmental Category: B

Implementing Agencies: Road Infrastructure Agency

Co-financiers and Other External Partners: None B. Key Dates

Process Date Process Original Date Revised / Actual Date(s)

Concept Review: 06/29/2006 Effectiveness: 12/13/2007 12/13/2007

Appraisal: 12/20/2006 Restructuring(s): 03/31/2011

Approval: 06/26/2007 Mid-term Review: 06/01/2009 10/12/2009

Closing: 06/30/2011 06/30/2013 C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR

Outcomes: Moderately Satisfactory

Risk to Development Outcome: Moderate

Bank Performance: Satisfactory

Borrower Performance: Moderately Satisfactory

C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR) Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings

Quality at Entry: Satisfactory Government: Not Applicable

Quality of Supervision: Satisfactory Implementing Agency/Agencies: Not Applicable

Overall Bank Performance: Satisfactory Overall Borrower

Performance: Moderately Satisfactory

C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators

Implementation Performance Indicators QAG Assessments (if

any) Rating

Potential Problem Project at any time (Yes/No):

No Quality at Entry (QEA): None

Problem Project at any time (Yes/No):

Yes Quality of Supervision (QSA):

None

DO rating before Moderately Satisfactory

Closing/Inactive status: D. Sector and Theme Codes

Original Actual

Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing)

Central government administration 4 10

Rural and Inter-Urban Roads and Highways 96 90

Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing)

Administrative and civil service reform 13 13

Infrastructure services for private sector development 25 25

Injuries and non-communicable diseases 24 24

Regional integration 13 13

Trade facilitation and market access 25 25 E. Bank Staff

Positions At ICR At Approval

Vice President: Laura Tuck Shigeo Katsu

Country Director: Mamta Murthi Anand K. Seth

Sector Manager: Juan Gaviria Motoo Konishi

Project Team Leader: Orlin M. Dikov Mohammed Dalil Essakali

ICR Team Leader: Rakesh Tripathi

ICR Primary Author: Rakesh Tripathi

ICR Co-author Michael Butler F. Results Framework Analysis Project Development Objectives (from Project Appraisal Document) The development objective of the proposed project would be to assist Bulgaria to reduce road transport costs by improving the condition and quality of its roads network during the first years of EU accession. Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) No Change (a) PDO Indicator(s)

Indicator Baseline Value Original Target Values (PAD)

Revised / New Target Values

(Restructuring)

Actual Value Achieved at Completion

Indicator 1 : Percentage of improved Class I roads initially in poor condition, measured in IRI (International Roughness Index) cumulative values

Value quantitative or Qualitative)

0 6.0% 3.6% 3.6%

Date 05/31/2007 05/31/2007 03/31/2011 06/30/2013 Comments (incl. % achievement) Successfully achieved. Formally revised target reduced as a result of restructuring.

Indicator 2 : Percentage of improved Class II roads initially in poor condition, measured in IRI (International Roughness Index) cumulative values


0 3.0% 3.2% 3.2%


Indicator 3 : Percentage of improved Class III roads initially in poor condition, measured in IRI (International Roughness Index) cumulative values


0 1.0% 0.5% 0.5%


Indicator 4 : Vehicle Operating Cost (VOC) on roads to be rehabilitated under the Project (Average, 2005 EUR per vehicle-kilometer)


0.250 0.225 - 0.225

Date 05/31/2007 05/31/2007 - 06/30/2013 Comments (incl. % achievement) Target achieved on all completed roads sections under the Project

(b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s)

Indicator Baseline Value Original Target Values (PAD)

Revised / New Target Values

(Restructuring)

Actual Value Achieved at Completion

Indicator 1 : Consultant Services for Project Management support for operational programs Value (quantitative or Qualitative)

0 staff-months - 260 cumulative staff-months

0 cumulative staff-months

Date 03/31/2011 - 03/31/2011 06/30/2013 Comments (incl. % achievement)

This activity was canceled because the consultancy services were carried out in-house by JASPERS. (JASPERS services are free to the Govt., hence it was an economic decision)

Indicator 2 : Consultant and advisory services for road sector management Value quantitative or Qualitative)

0 staff-months - 24 cumulative staff-months

18 cumulative staff-months

Date 03/31/2011 - 03/31/2011 06/30/2013

Comments (incl. % achievement)

This activity was partially achieved through the 18 month contract of the Highway Advisor procured under this Project. It should be noted additional advisory services were carried out in-house by RIA’s local consultant.

Indicator 3 : Project management manuals reviewed, finalized and in use Value quantitative or Qualitative)

No - Yes No

Date 03/31/2011 - 03/31/2011 06/30/2013 Comments (incl. % achievement) This was completed with RIA’s own funds under an in-house consultancy contract.

Indicator 4 : Studies on institutional set up, human resources and development of competencies in the sector carried out


No - Yes No

Date 03/31/2011 - 03/31/2011 06/30/2013 Comments (incl. % achievement) This activity was canceled by RIA.

Indicator 5 : Number of kilometers of Class I roads rehabilitated under the Project Value quantitative or Qualitative)

0 km 174km 117 km 117.2km


Indicator 6 : Number of kilometers of Class II roads rehabilitated under the Project Value quantitative or Qualitative)

0 km 138km 127 km 130km


Indicator 7: Number of kilometers of Class III roads rehabilitated under the Project Value quantitative or Qualitative)

0 km 138km 63 km 62.9km


Indicator 8 : Works (W), Goods (G), and Consulting Services (CS) contracts processed and managed by Management Consultant


0 (W), 0 (G), 0 (CS) 9 (W); 8 (G); 2 (CS) - 6 (W); 13 (G); 5 (CS)

Date 05/31/2007 05/31/2007 - 06/30/2013


The restructured target was actually achieved. The number of civil works contracts was reduced from 9 to 6 as part of the restructuring, however this was not reflected in the revised results framework.

Indicator 9 : Training received by RIA staff from management Consultant (in staff-hours) Value quantitative or Qualitative)

0 1,700 2,200 2,774

Date 05/31/2007 05/31/2007 03/31/2011 06/30/2013 Comments (incl. % achievement) Successfully achieved.

Indicator 10 : Updating of road data for Class I roads (% of total length per year) Value quantitative or Qualitative)

0% 100% - 80%

Date 05/31/2007 05/31/2007 - 06/30/2013 Comments (incl. % achievement) It is expected that this will be achieved within 6 months of the project closing.

Indicator 11 : Updating of road data for Class II roads (% of total length per year) Value quantitative or Qualitative)

0% 50% - 25%

Date 05/31/2007 05/31/2007 - 06/30/2013 Comments (incl. % achievement) Due to insufficient budget, not all road data is being collected for Class II roads.

Indicator 12 : Updating of road data for Class III roads (% of total length per year) Value 0% 15% - 10%

quantitative or Qualitative) Date 05/31/2007 05/31/2007 - 06/30/2013 Comments (incl. % achievement) Due to insufficient budget, not all road data is being collected for Class III roads.

Indicator 13 : Implementation and Effective use of Road Management System by RIA Value quantitative or Qualitative)

No Yes - Partially

Date 05/31/2007 05/31/2007 - 06/30/2013


Only partially implemented because automatic traffic counters were not procured. In terms of effectiveness, the RMS is not being used to its full potential (refer to Section 2.2 for more details).

Indicator 14 : Rolling Multi-year road maintenance and rehabilitation program established Value quantitative or Qualitative)

No Yes - Partially

Date 05/31/2007 05/31/2007 - 06/30/2013


Although RIA has prepared annual and three-year programs for maintenance, they are not developing rolling multi-year programs using the newly procured Road Management System (Indicator 13).

Indicator 15 : Capacity of RIA to manage road maintenance: number of area-wide maintenance contracts prepared


0 3 - 3

Date 05/31/2007 05/31/2007 - 06/30/2013


Three PBC contracts were prepared under the Project. RIA made additional modifications to the contracts and eventually tendered two PBC covering two motorway sections.

Indicator 16 : Road safety strategy and plans prepared Value quantitative or Qualitative)

No Yes - Yes

Date 05/31/2007 05/31/2007 - 06/30/2013


This included the road safety capacity review and preparation of road safety action plan. In addition, 25 black spots were identified and detailed designs prepared for 10 – implementation is currently ongoing.

G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs

No. Date ISR Archived DO IP Actual Disbursements

(USD millions) 1 11/13/2007 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 2 03/06/2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 3 05/05/2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 4 11/06/2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory 4.83 5 03/23/2009 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 4.83 6 08/05/2009 Satisfactory Satisfactory 10.10 7 12/08/2009 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 9.74 8 04/14/2010 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 18.14 9 11/10/2010 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 19.63 10 06/29/2011 Moderately Unsatisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 36.92 11 10/30/2011 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 47.38 12 10/22/2012 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 92.44

13 12/25/2012 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 92.44 14 06/22/2013 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 102.61

H. Restructuring (if any)

Restructuring Date(s)

Board Approved

PDO Change

ISR Ratings at Restructuring

Amount Disbursed at

Restructuring in USD millions

Reason for Restructuring & Key Changes Made DO IP

03/31/2011 N/A MS MU 36.92

Level 2 Restructuring. The proposed project restructuring is necessary for the following two reasons: (i) To reflect the Government’s new priorities with regard to the absorption of European Union (EU) funds and; (ii) To improve project implementation performance. Key changes included: (i) reduction in the scope of rehabilitation works under Component 1 and borrower’s financing share; (ii) expansion of “Component 2: Institutional Development” - focusing it on the absorption of EU funds; (iii) extension of the Loan Closing Date by 24 months to enable full completion of the expanded Component 2 and of all ongoing road rehabilitation works under Component 1.

1

1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design

1.1 Context at Appraisal 1.1.1 Country background. At the time of approval, Bulgaria’s economy had grown by 6.2 percent in 2006 – at the same time poverty levels had dropped and unemployment had decreased from 18 to 11.7 percent over the preceding six years. At this time Bulgaria’s main challenge was to narrow the income gap and facilitate convergence with the European Union (EU) by continuing to raise productivity and employment.

1.1.2 Road Sector Background Prior to EU accession, Bulgaria had aligned its transport policy and regulations with that of the rest of EU, providing the necessary framework for the country’s full integration within the EU transport market. In addition, there had been several investment programs since the late 1990s to upgrade the transport infrastructure to EU standards and to enhance the transport links with neighboring countries and with the rest of the EU. Research had shown that only one-third of the national road network was in good condition and road capacity around the large urban centers was not sufficient to satisfy the growing traffic demand. Furthermore, a considerable portion of the core national road network still needed to be upgraded to European technical and safety standards. Bulgaria was committed to completing the upgrade of its main road network to EU standards by 2014, with a number of roads to be upgraded by 2008.

1.1.3 Rationale for Bank involvement. In 2007, Bulgaria joined the European Union and it was already a major concern that the country would be ill prepared to absorb EU Transport funds. In this scenario this project being the Bank’s first road sector project in Bulgaria took on an added significance by introducing institutional capacity building elements as part of this loan, which has now proven valuable on a wider road sector EU funds absorption capacity of RIA. The primary rationale for Bank involvement derived from a Public Finance Policy Review of the Bulgarian transport sector prepared by the Bank. The paper discussed the efficient use of prospective EU grant funds in the road sector, and financing options for roads that are not eligible for EU grants, with a particular emphasis on the need to strengthen institutional capacity of RIA. The Government subsequently decided that the Bank could assist Bulgaria on three levels:

(i) To assist in improving the condition of roads outside the Trans-European Network - Transport (TEN-T) including Class I, II and III roads. Targeting Class II and III roads was expected to improve access to markets for the population and enterprises in small towns and rural areas. With direct development impact in rural and urbanized communities facing economic challenges in the country.

(ii) To improve the road management capacity of RIA through preparation of multiyear road maintenance programs (under a constrained budget) vis-à-vis modernization of the existing road data and management systems.

(iii) To assist with the establishment of the newly created Roads Policy Directorate in the Ministry of Transport in order to strengthen technical and managerial capacity to efficiently implement ongoing and future road projects.

1.2 Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators The development objective of the proposed project was to assist Bulgaria to reduce road transport costs by improving the condition and quality of its roads network during the first years of EU accession.

The list below specifies the project monitoring indicators, including the outcomes that were expected at the end of the project.

2

Project outcome indicators (i) Improvement, by the end of the project, of the condition of roads to be rehabilitated under the

project, measured in IRI1. This will translate, at the network level, into the improvement of: (a) 6 percent of Class I roads; (b) 3 percent of Class II roads; (c) 1 percent of Class III roads

(ii) Reduction, by the end of the project, in Vehicle Operating Costs by at least 10 percent on roads rehabilitated under the project.2

Project intermediate outcome indicators (i) Rehabilitation by the end of the project of about:

(a) 174 km. of Class I roads; (b) 138 km. of Class II roads; (c) 138 km. of Class III roads (ii) Timely processing and implementation of contracts and the staff training program. (iii) Implementation and effective use by the RIA of an enhanced Road Management System. (iv) Preparation by the RIA of a rolling multi-year road maintenance and rehabilitation program. (v) Preparation by the RIA of at least three performance-based area-wide maintenance contracts. (vi) Preparation of a road safety improvement strategy with implementation plans.

1.3 Revised PDO and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification The PDO was not affected by the restructuring of the project in April 2011, however the outcome and intermediate indicators were amended to reflect the modified scope of the components and to be consistent with the definition of the outcome indicators in the PAD. More specifically, the following amendments were made: (i) Reduction of the targets for outcome indicators related to total number of kilometers rehabilitated; (ii) Additional indicators to measure the results achieved in relation with the expanded Component 2; and (iii) the definition of the outcome indicators related to the percentage of Class I, II, and III roads to be rehabilitated included in the “Arrangement for results monitoring” in the PAD were substituted with the definition of the same indicator as described in the “Results Framework” table in the PAD. This change was necessary because the network-wide targets included in the table on “Arrangement for results monitoring” included impacts of other ongoing road rehabilitation programs in Bulgaria. The PDO indicators captured the road rehabilitation but did not explicitly measure achievements in institutional strengthening and road safety which were only measured by intermediate indicators.

1.4 Main Beneficiaries The PDO and key indicators showed that the primary beneficiaries of the Project would be the road users and local businesses predominantly in economically depressed rural areas of Bulgaria. The improvement of traffic conditions, especially on roads of regional importance, would improve both connectivity and road safety for its users and promote economic growth in the region. In the socio-economic context, the improvement of local roads directly influences the daily social life for 70 percent of the population who live in the rural areas or in small towns. As a result, local people would have better access to public amenities such as schools, healthcare and business centers. In addition, the execution of road rehabilitation projects would generate new jobs quickly and stimulate the local economy through indirect purchasing of local goods and services.

1 IRI means International (Road) Roughness Index. 2 The reduction in Vehicle Operating Cost in response to improved IRI is obtained from the Highway Development and Management model (HDM-4). Inputs for HDM-4 will be adjusted so as to account for improvement in road condition only.

3

The secondary beneficiary of the Project was expected to be the Road Infrastructure Agency (RIA). The institutional component of the Project was expected to improve RIA’s management capacity of the republican road network; through better financial management and planning of road maintenance and rehabilitation, and by introducing more cost-effective contracting mechanisms. The Project would also support RIA in the implementation of the National Road Infrastructure Strategy by improving planned policy and management of road maintenance and road safety priorities in accordance with European best practice.

1.5 Original Components Component 1: Rehabilitation of selected roads (estimated cost: EUR 140.15 million). This component comprised civil works for the rehabilitation of selected Class I, II, and III roads during the period 2007-2010 and the provision of consultancy services to assist RIA during the life of the project with the review of the designs, procurement and contract management. Design and supervision of construction works were to be carried out by consulting firms, and were not included in the project. RIA had prepared a priority program for the rehabilitation of about 450 kilometers of road sections distributed throughout the country, which were selected on the basis of economic and other social benefits.

The consultancy services under this component were to assist RIA through the provision of technical advisory services and training regarding the review of designs, procurement, supervision, management and reporting for the implementation of the project. This also included on-the job training for the preparation of bidding documents, review of bids, and the coordination and oversight of quality control of works and their supervision.

Component 2: Institutional Development (estimated cost: EUR 2.41 million). This component comprised consulting services, studies, the provision of equipment, and training to: (i) strengthen the internal management and operations of the RIA; (ii) improve road sector planning, programming, budgeting, and program implementation with particular focus on the use of EU Cohesion and Structural Funds; and (iii) improve the efficiency of road maintenance practices. The component included (a) a technical advisor for the RIA's management, (b) technical assistance to enhance RIA's financial management capacity and to conduct the required project financial audits which include operational reviews, (c) technical assistance to develop a road management system and to prepare for piloting Performance-based Maintenance Contracts, (d) the acquisition of road data collection equipment, related software, and computer equipment, and update of traffic and road databases, and (e) a training program for RIA staff and management on road management, and absorption of EU funds. These were activities needed to gradually bring the RIA's operations and performance to the level of EU standards.

Component 3: Road safety (estimated cost: EUR 1.44 million). This component included: (i) EUR 0.24 million for technical assistance targeted at specific road safety improvements, such as the development of road safety plans, public awareness campaigns, development of legal aspects of road safety, introduction of new approaches to enforcement, development of new approaches for timely medical emergency services, etc.; and (ii) EUR 1.20 million to finance priority activities aimed at improving road safety such as removing traffic crash black spots, areas with traffic conflict situations, and for additional technical assistance. The objective of this component was to assist in improving road safety in Bulgaria through a coordinated and integrated package of cost-effective, multi-sectorial road safety interventions designed on the basis of international best practice.

1.6 Revised Components Component 1: Rehabilitation of Selected Roads. The scope and size of this component was reduced in order to reflect the reduced budget for the project in 2010 and 2011. Budgetary restrictions have been imposed on public investment programs due to the impact of the global financial crisis on Bulgaria’s fiscal position, and to the Government’s fiscal policy aimed at keeping the budget deficit under control in

4

compliance with EU’s budget deficit targets. This implies longer implementation periods for most contracts under the project. The reduced budget impacted the project’s financing plan and prevented RIA from starting some road rehabilitation works and completing them, even with the proposed extension to the Loan Closing Date.

The restructuring included a reduction in the length of roads to be rehabilitated from 450 kilometers (as described in the original Loan Agreement) to 307 kilometers of roads. Until June 30, 2010, contracts had been awarded for the rehabilitation of 392 kilometers of roads (after modifications of the scope of works from the original 450 kilometers). Therefore, contracts (lots 5, 6 and 7) corresponding to about 87 kilometers out of 392 km for which works had not started were cancelled. The original total project cost was Euro 144 million and the revised total project cost was Euro 105.2 million, hence the reduction in the length of rehabilitated roads (From 450 km to 307 km).

Component 2: Institutional Development. The scope of this component was expanded and focused on the two first sub-components goals as described in the PAD and in the Loan Agreement under Part II.1: (i) strengthen the internal management and operations related to the road sector; and (ii) improve road sector planning, programming, budgeting and program implementation with particular focus on road programs funded from the Cohesion Fund and the European Regional Development Fund. This expansion followed a request from the Minister of Regional Development and subsequent letter from the Prime Minister addressed to the World Bank President to cover project management support to EU funds absorption in road sector. The aim of the expanded activities was to help with the full and timely utilization of EU funds available to the road sector in Bulgaria, and accelerating the preparation, approval, implementation and disbursement of these funds. The additional areas of support was planned to start in mid 2011 and to span over a period of 24 months. The project management support was provided by JASPERS for no cost to the agency.

The specific activities included the provision of consultancy services to provide advice on EU funds implementation, including the review of current status of the EU supported Operational Program for Transport (OPT) and Operational Program for Regional Development (OPRD) and the support to streamline and standardize preparation and implementation of projects. They would also directly provide technical services to strengthen RIA and MRD’s directorates in charge of management of EU-funded road projects and support practical preparation of EU-funded road programs for the period 2010 – 2020.

There was also a cancelation of a small subcomponent related to “Support to RIA to enhance its financial management capacity through the provision of technical advisory services, training and equipment and the carrying out of studies”. This subcomponent was initially expected to enhance RIA’s financial management system. Since project appraisal, RIA has implemented—outside of the scope of the project—an upgrade of its financial management system.

Component 3: Road Safety. There were no changes under this component.

1.7 Revised Financing As a result of the restructuring of Components 1 and 2, the project costs were revised as indicated in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Project Costs by Component (EUR million with VAT) Components/Activities Original Revised

1. Rehabilitation of selected roads 140.15 95.06 2. Institutional development 2.41 9.12 3. Road safety 1.44 1.44 Total Project Costs 144.00 105.62

5

With the reduced project cost, and in order to provide flexibility to the government during the years following the financial crisis, it was agreed to keep the loan amount unchanged (EUR 90 million) and to decrease the share of financing from the Borrower. The increase in the share of Bank financing is reflected in an increase in the percentage of expenditures to be financed from loan proceeds as shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Allocation of Loan proceeds by Disbursement Category and percentage of expenditures to be financed from loan proceeds

Original allocation

(EUR)

Allocation after

Restructuring (EUR)

Actual project

expenditures

Percentage of Expenditures to be financed from the Loan

Original Revised (1)(2)

Actual

(1) Goods and Works for the Project

88,000,000 81,000,000 76,835,000 75% 90% 79%

(2) Consultants’ Services, Audits, Training and Technical Advisory Services for the Project

2,000,000 9,000,000 20,150,000 75% 100% 21%

Total 90,000,000 90,000,000 97,146,0003 (1) Of expenditures including VAT. (2) The percentages come into force for payments upon the effectiveness of the proposed amendment to the Loan Agreement.

1.8 Time Extension: Revised Closing Date The project restructuring also included the extension of the Loan Closing Date by 24 months; to enable the full completion of the expanded Component 2 and of all ongoing road rehabilitation works under Component 1. The new Loan Closing Date was June 30, 2013. The rationale for extension was to enable the Borrower to complete the road rehabilitation works and achieve a satisfactory outcome in the expanded institutional development component. This was the first and only extension of the project.

2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes

2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry

2.1.1 Soundness of the background analysis. Project preparation included a good analysis of the challenges facing the road sector at the time of appraisal and extensive dialogues with the Government to assist it define a responsive strategy. The rationale for Bank involvement in the rehabilitation of lower-tier roads was underpinned by the Public Finance Policy Review4 prepared by the Bank in 2006. This study included a review of how Bulgaria could make efficient use of prospective EU grant funds in the road sector, including the issue of and how to finance roads that are not eligible for EU grants financing and the importance of strengthening the institutional capacity of Bulgaria’s road management.

At the time of appraisal, other IFI’s were focusing primarily on financing construction and rehabilitation of motorways and Class I roads within the Trans-European Network – Transport (TEN-T). All these major projects and programs focused on European corridors and the Government was of the view that this should not crowd out spending needed to clear the large maintenance and rehabilitation backlog on other Class I roads, and more particularly on Class II and III roads. The proposed project was envisaged to

3 There is 161 thousand Euro foreign currency exchange rate difference 4 Bulgaria Public Finance Policy Review. World Bank Report No. 33992-BG. 2006.

6

address this particular issue by addressing the balance between financing for maintenance of existing assets and that for new construction, as well as between roads within and outside EU corridors.

During its early transition years, Bulgaria implemented reforms in the institutions of the road sector, but over the last decade there has been concern that these changes have not led to significant improvements in policy administration nor in the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery. The implications of unfinished reforms and lack of efficiency are not negligible: poor prioritization leads to high fiscal costs, significant grant funds from the European Union (EU) are underutilized, and transport infrastructure and services are far below the expectations of Bulgarian citizens and European quality standards.

The Bank team also discussed with the MRDPW, the COM and RIA the content of the separate support requested by the Government from the World Bank in terms of reimbursable advisory services (RAS). Development of the terms of reference had been initiated. It was agreed that the MRDPW, RIA and World Bank will finalize the Terms of Reference in a way to avoid any overlap, ensure full consistency and avoid any conflict of interest between the two activities.

2.1.2 Assessment of the Project design. The Project design was relatively straightforward in terms of the main civil works component, implementation arrangements and safeguard policies involved. The main civil works component financed the rehabilitation of selected Class I, II and III roads, including consultancy services for project management. The type of rehabilitation works was straightforward and did not require land acquisition.

Focus on lower class roads in predominantly rural and undeveloped area align with World Bank’s mission and its development impact.

2.1.3 Adequacy of Government’s commitment. At the time of appraisal, the Project was consistent with the objectives of the Government’s draft Transport Strategy5, whose goals were to achieve economic efficiency, develop a sustainable transport sector, and assist regional and social development. These objectives are still relevant today and are consistent with the draft Road Sector Strategy currently being prepared by the government. The Project at entry also supported the objectives of the Sectorial Operational Program for Transport (SOPT) in terms of institutional capacity building of RIA and improving their ability to effectively utilize EU cohesion funds – also consistent with the draft Road Sector Strategy.

2.1.4 Assessment of risks. At appraisal stage, the Project was identified as a moderate risk operation. Although RIA had successfully implemented IFI funded projects in the past, there was a new challenge to adjust to the increase in activities and political environment following accession to the EU. The main risk was institutional because RIA had been recently restructured with a new type of oversight arrangement and reported to three ministries instead of one; it had different type of road financing base sources; and changes to operating procedures. However, there were no controversial issues foreseen to arise during the implementation of the project. The following is an assessment of the Project risks / mitigation identified at appraisal stage: 1) Institutional change. There was a moderate risk that the ongoing organizational changes in the road

sector in Bulgaria may take longer than what initially envisaged under the Project. RIA management had been restructured and needed time to adjust to its new environment and implement the remaining institutional changes. This risk was well identified and was a constant issue during implementation. The Project included technical assistance activities to assist the Government with this ongoing institutional change –this mitigated the risk to a certain extent, but it was very difficult for the Bank to

5 Strategy for the Development of the National Transport System of the Republic of Bulgaria until 2015.Ministry of Transport. 2005.

7

eliminate the bottlenecks in RIA’s procurement procedures. However, the management consultant was very helpful assisting RIA in this regard.

2) Funding for road maintenance and rehabilitation. There was a moderate risk that insufficient funding for road maintenance and rehabilitation would continue after Project effectiveness. The Government expected that additional funding for the road sector in general from EU Cohesion and Structural Funds after EU accession may free some money for road maintenance. The Government also anticipated higher revenues from the road vignette. When the global financial crisis hit in 2009, which could not have been anticipated at project appraisal, Bulgaria had to tighten its fiscal controls and this subsequently led to the freezing of counterpart disbursements.

3) Implementation of road works under the project. There was also a moderate risk that the project may suffer from delays in procuring road works. Some past road investment projects in Bulgaria such as those financed with EU pre-accession funds had suffered from significant delays. This risk was mitigated very well by the Bank – the Project included the services of a consulting firm to assist with overall procurement and contract management – this was very effective in ensuring faster procurement procedures.

4) Efficient maintenance planning and implementation. There was a moderate risk that it would take time for RIA to prepare and implement medium-term rolling plans for maintenance using the equipment, tools and methodologies procured or developed under the proposed project. There was also a risk that testing new methods for maintenance implementation such as area-wide performance-based maintenance contracting may be delayed or abandoned.

2.2 Implementation 2.2.1 Implementation efficiency. Delays in implementation have been a challenge throughout the Project’s lifecycle and this was mostly as a result of changes in government and RIA management, and budgetary austerity measures during the global financial crisis of 2009. Despite a positive start to the project, including the launch of initial works contracts and mobilization of contractors, Implementation Progress was downgraded to Moderately Satisfactory in early 2009 after substantial delays in contract management and slow disbursement from the loan. This was as a result of major restructuring and changes in RIA management, creating severe bottlenecks in procedures and delays in procurement. Although there was a significant recovery in late 2009 (63 percent of the loan committed to signed contracts), a new government came into power which led to further restructurings within RIA management and budgetary constraints. As a result of intense fiscal pressure in the country’s economy, the new government decided to freeze disbursements from the loan for the entire 2010 construction season 6. Some contractors continued to work despite the uncertainty of payment because they were already mobilized and in some cases close to completion. However, most of the contracts were delayed for several months severely impacting the implementation progress and downgrading its rating to Moderately Unsatisfactory for 2010. Implementation efficiency was eventually improved in late 2011 following the project restructuring and improvement in the fiscal environment – untendered lots were dropped and remaining works were completed within an extended timeframe, albeit with some delays in the road safety component (see below).

2.2.2 Mid-term review and project restructuring. The mid-term review provided a good opportunity for the Bank to discuss new priorities with the new government and how the Project could support these goals. The government expressed that its top priority was to ensure the speedy and full utilization of the EU

6 A letter was sent by the government to all contractors stating that payment of works would be delayed until further notice.

8

Cohesion and Regional Development Funds that were available to the Bulgarian road sector. A year later the project restructuring played a crucial role in turning the course of Project implementation for the better. After substantial delays in 2010, as mentioned previously, the Project was restructured by scaling down civil works contracts, extending project timeframe and scaling up the institutional components to assist in the government’s new priorities. Most importantly, the project restructuring reduced the share of counterpart funding, allowing them more flexibility and ability to disburse on time. Although this was critical in ensuring the completion of civil works, it would have been more advantageous to have restructured the project earlier to improve efficiency of delivery.

2.2.3 Quality of completed rehabilitation works. Works were executed in compliance with the approved design documentation and approved modifications to the lots. All modifications were clearly documented and reviewed in the Supervising Consultant’s reports. The supervisor conducted regular site inspections to check the quality of executed works and materials in order to satisfy the Technical Specification and the approved design. As a whole, the Works were executed with good quality and workmanship. Further to the supervisor’s assessment, additional testing of construction materials and completed sections of the Works were conducted by the technical institute within RIA. There were only a few instances when the quality of works and/or materials were insufficient – in such cases the materials were removed from the sites and/or the works were re-executed until achieving the required characteristics. The achievement of the required level of quality of executed Works was tested and monitored by the site laboratories prior to the handing over of the assets. The defect liability period for all civil works contracts is now complete and the quality of works has been accepted by RIA.

2.2.4 Delivery of Road Management System. The main objective of the institutional development component of the Project was to implement a modern and sustainable Road Management System (RMS), which was envisaged to be fully effective by the end of the Project. Unfortunately, this objective was only partially achieved. The majority of RMS hardware (i.e. data collection and testing equipment) and software (i.e. computer programs for data analysis, management and strategic planning) was installed during the implementation. The first attempt to supply supplementary (but not mandatory for the RMS) equipment such as the automatic traffic counters was not completed due to limited response from suppliers. There was a second attempt to procure traffic counters which was again unsuccessful. In addition, the specialized consultant provided training to RIA staff on the effective usage of the RMS equipment and computer software. Although the training itself was successful, many of the trained personnel are no longer in their original positions, leaving the technical institute with limited human resource capacity.

2.2.5 Performance Based Contracts (PBC). The PBC initiative was a major undertaking and a paradigm shift for a very traditional roads agency to start implementing an innovative delivery method. This institution capacity building dimension can be considered a major milestone in the way maintenance delivery is looked at in Bulgaria. Due to the success of PBC, currently the RIA is designing a major PBC contract which would cover a large proportion of secondary roads, all of which will result in significant improvement in the efficiency of road assets in the country.

A consultant engaged for this component successfully completed the studies for the design and procurement of PBC in Bulgaria. The PBC models developed under this project were modified by RIA as follows: (i) adapted to public procurement legislation; and (ii) contract duration reduced from 5 to 2 years (due to budgetary constraints). The modified contracts are now being piloted on Liulin and Lot 2, 3 and 4 of Trakia motorway. RIA has expressed its overall satisfaction with PBC and had some useful lessons learnt. Since the winters in Bulgaria are not always consistent, there were suggestions to change the winter maintenance performance indicators (coefficients) by improving the level of intervention. Another important lesson is that PBCs need to be at least 5 – 10 years in order to be cost efficient. Overall, this institutional development activity was successfully implemented.

9

2.2.6 Delivery of road safety activities. The program for training of road safety instructors in RIA and the Ministry of Transport was satisfactorily implemented. At the end of the program 24 participants became certified in Road Safety Design & Audit and Network Safety Management in accordance with the EU directive for management of road infrastructure safety. Although this is a positive outcome, it is important that more training is provided in the coming years to keep up the momentum and ensure that road safety capacity is raised to a level where Bulgaria can independently conduct Road Safety Audits and incorporate road safety improvements into road designs. It should be noted that this is already being done and the recently completed road sections under this project incorporated many important road safety improvements with commendable results. The road safety value engineering was done as a joint collaborative approach between RIA, traffic police and other important stakeholders.

The following were met: (i) road safety capacity review and preparation of road safety action plan; and (ii) preparation and implementation of road safety interventions. The first activity has been completed and the outcome target has been achieved. Under the second activity, road safety consultants investigated 25 black spots and prepared detailed designs for 10 of them. Unfortunately, the interventions were not implemented within the project closing date. RIA intends to implement the proposed interventions for all 25 black spots.

2.2.7 Consultancy Services for increasing EU absorption. In relation to the support to RIA in increasing EU funds absorption (included at the request of the Minister after project restructuring in April 2011) under Operational Programs for Transport and Regional Development (OPT and OPRD), this was only partially completed. RIA canceled the loan proceeds (6 million EUR) relating to the consultancy service for OPT/OPRD; including institutional assessment of RIA, and review and improvement of project management manuals. Although the component was canceled from the project, the discussions about its scope of work helped RIA better clarify its weaknesses and focus its own interventions on those areas that needed be urgently addressed.

The project restructuring also included the hiring of a Highway Advisor responsible for providing strategic advice to the high level policy makers at the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works for the road sector in Bulgaria. The overall services of the advisor were successful and provided strategic advice on issues such as road financing, road sector policy, evaluation of roles and responsibilities of MRDPW and RIA, performance assessment and indicators for road sector, public private partnerships (PPP) and long-term maintenance and development.

2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization Project monitoring during project implementation was carried out by RIA. Their responsibilities included close supervision of the civil works and technical assistance, auditing financial statements, and monitoring project performance indicators for the duration of the project. Project reports were prepared by RIA on a quarterly basis and submitted to the Bank for review. The technical institute within RIA was responsible for collecting data for the performance indicators over the course of the project’s lifecycle. Data collection & management within the technical institute was strengthened under the project through the financing of better instruments for data acquisition and management. The Results Framework of the PAD consisted of a list of outcome indicators and intermediate results for monitoring progress and outcomes (Section 3.2). The project design included specific output indicators for each component, and covered physical as well as institutional results (Annex 2). In 2009, four Core Sector Indicators were introduced for monitoring. The Results Framework was updated as part of the restructuring in 2011 to incorporate core indicators and new/modified indicators that reflected the revised scope of works and new priorities of the government (Section 3.2).

10

The project included two components for Institutional strengthening and road safety with significant development impact. However these components did not have a corresponding PDO development indicator but rather intermediate indicators.

2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance 2.4.1 Environmental Safeguards. The Project triggered Bank safeguards policy “Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01)” and was classified as an environmental Category B project. An Environmental Management Plan (EMP) was prepared by RIA and included all measures to address potential environmental impacts (e.g. the approach to ensure during works adequate passage for animals, drainage or other issues that are relevant to the specific areas) and monitoring activities to be implemented during the construction stage. Overall, the EMP was satisfactorily implemented by contractors and monitored by the Supervision Engineer and RIA.

2.4.2 Social Safeguards. Since all of the civil works under this project was within the existing right of way, there was no land acquisition needed. There were no reports of complaints from local people during the project life.

2.4.3 Procurement. The procurement of works, goods and technical assistance (non-consulting services) was carried out in accordance with Bank Guidelines. All contracts under the latest update of the procurement plan were signed and completed before the project closing date on June 30, 2013. All civil works lots were procured through international competitive bidding.

2.4.4 Financial Management. The financial management aspects of the Project were managed by the existing financial experts from the Projects Financial and Payments Department within RIA. Although the experts did not have previous experience working on Bank-funded projects, they learned on the job, adapted well and became fully familiarized with the Bank’s financial management and disbursement guidelines. RIA had adequate internal controls which were in accordance with the Bulgarian legislation and the Bank’s project financial management manual.

Overall, the FM performance of the project has been moderately satisfactory throughout the project life. The quarterly unaudited financial monitoring reports have been received in general on time, although there were some small delays. The most recent reports received covered the final quarter of the project, which closed June 30, 2013. With certain follow up actions required to clarify any discrepancies, all the audit reports have been accepted by the Bank. The project team used to wait until the Designated Account was depleted, before requiring replenishments, despite several recommendations to the contrary made by the Bank team along the project life. This caused at times some delays in the timely payment of suppliers and contractors, despite loan funds being readily available. All the project audit reports have been received and accepted by the Bank by the due dates. The audit opinions were clean and some internal control issues were mentioned. Some of the internal control issues mentioned, such as using the different eligibility percentage required a long time to be addressed. The final adjustments in correcting the Bank eligible percentages have been done at the end of the project life. The final project reports, including figures up to the end of the grace period (October 31, 2013) were submitted. The auditors submitted the final project audit reports by end November, 2013.

The counterpart financing has been satisfactory in the final years of the project, following the improvement of the counterpart funds from 2011 onwards and the 2011 project restructuring which reduced the burden on the Government and increased the Bank-eligible expenditure percentage. The project has been affected to a certain extent by delays in the provision of timely and adequate counterpart funding, especially during 2010, when the CF rating has been less than satisfactory. This has also led to some issues with the eligibility percentage used for some project expenses, and these issues have been only fully sorted out at the end of the project.

11

2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase The newly rehabilitated road sections under the Project have all been handed back to RIA following the successful completion of the defect liability periods. Summer and winter maintenance of the entire Republican Road Network in Bulgaria is contracted out to the private sector under multi-year maintenance contracts (usually 4 years in duration). The maintenance contracts are split amongst each of the 27 country districts and cover the respective roads within that area. Unfortunately, current maintenance practices in Bulgaria are insufficient in terms of planning of works, contract methodology and funding requirements. Moreover, planning and budgeting for routine maintenance and repairs is a subjective exercise undertaken annually at the end of the winter season - quantities are determined in joint meetings with the districts’ maintenance staff and RIA’s maintenance management – leading to lack of quality control. It was evident from site visits that summer maintenance, such as vegetation cutting and clearing of open drains, was not being done on many of the newly rehabilitated sections. There is a real threat to sustainability if these issues are not proactively addressed.

3. Assessment of Outcomes 3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation 3.1.1 Relevance of the PDO. The PDO remains relevant as first, second and third class roads outside of Bulgaria’s TEN-T road network still require rehabilitation and improvement to improve access to markets for the population and enterprises in small towns and rural areas, augment employment opportunities after EU accession, and reduce traffic conflicts and road crash black spots. The institutional capacity of RIA still needs strengthening, especially in terms of road management capacity of RIA and its capacity to independently prepare multiyear road maintenance programs under a constrained budget. However, it was not particularly covered in the PDO. Improving Bulgaria’s road transport links with the rest of the EU is still of critical importance. Moreover, improving internal transportation is essential for connecting the high proportion of people living in rural areas to key markets and services, especially when you consider Bulgaria’s geographic and economic features. In addition, the PDO is still in line with the Bank’s CPS.

3.1.2 Relevance of Design. Improvement in the conditions of the lower-tier republican road network remains the backbone of efforts to decrease rural poverty, promote regional development and better integrate the economy at the national level. Furthermore, by improving the connectivity of the road network in the most remote regions, there is improved accessibility to key services such as education and healthcare. This is still very relevant today because many hospitals are far away from villages and small towns; therefore improved accessibility of ambulances is very important for time sensitive emergencies.

The road safety activities designed under the Project are still very relevant today and remain an important agenda for the government, especially in terms of achieving the EU directive to reduce the number of fatalities in the country.

3.1.3 Relevance of Implementation. Rehabilitation of roads under component 1 constituted 90% of the overall Project cost, therefore it was one of the main focuses during implementation and critical in terms of disbursement. The civil works remained relevant throughout the Project and it was very important that they were completed on time to ensure no cost overruns. As mentioned earlier, there were delays during implementation, which severely threatened the sustainability of the government’s investment. The implementation of the institutional strengthening activities was very relevant in respect to RIA improving its road management capabilities and role in road safety improvements. Constant organizational change and personnel turnover has resulted in depleted institutional memory with respect to RMS. The on-going of Road Safety measures and acceptance the Road Safety report are encouraging signs.

Under the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed by the Prime Minister of Bulgaria and the World Bank President on August 10, 2010, the Government of Bulgaria requested a stronger role for the World Bank as a technical adviser to the government in the road sector. Mechanisms for utilizing funds

12

under the Operational Programs to obtain these services from the World Bank were explored with the European Commission (EC) and Advisory Service Agreement was signed in October 2012. The support complements and significantly scales up the Road Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project cooperation between Bulgaria and the World Bank in the roads sector. Under Government leadership, the World Bank support program was fully coordinated with other ongoing and planned technical assistance provided by the EC, EIB and JASPERS, driven by a common vision to create synergies and better leverage support from the respective institutions.

3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives A big picture achievement of this project is that it went beyond the actual project development objectives. This project gave the Bank a space for very fruitful policy dialogue with the Bulgarian government. It helped the Bank get widely involved in the road sector reforms and institutional capacity enhancement. The Project achievements on the institutional front helped the Bulgarian government better understand the value proposition of the Bank’s technical support during supervision. Separately from the Project, the Government of Bulgaria engaged the Bank in Reimbursable Advisory Services. The achievement of the PDO is rated as moderately satisfactory. While the achievement of the revised outcome indicators relating to the civil works were satisfactory at the end of the project, the achievement of PDO by the time of restructuring is considered moderately unsatisfactory, thus weighted outcome is moderately satisfactory. Also the achievement of institutional capacity outputs was only moderately satisfactory, due to partial completions and some cancelations. There is a threat that the positive outcomes associated with the capital improvements may diminish if road management/ contracting practices are not improved. Critical success factors will depend on the optimization of the RMS and the paradigm shift towards preventative maintenance, rather than reactive maintenance which is very prevalent in Bulgaria. Road safety component was implemented successfully with moderately satisfactory outcome, due to the not implemented black spots improvements under the project. Both institutional and road safety components, not covered in the PDO, are rated as moderately satisfactory. PDO ratings, related to the rehabilitation works, were weighted in proportion to the share of actual loan disbursements made before and after the approval of the Level-2 restructuring. The final rating that results is Moderately Satisfactory, after rounding to the nearest whole number. The summary of the assessments is provided in table 3.2.1. The PDO weighted rating is consistent with the other two components rating.

13

Table 3.2.1. Assessment of the Overall Outcome

Against Original Outcome indicators

Against Revised Outcome indicators Overall Comments

1 Relevance of the PDOs, design, and implementation Relevant Relevant

2 Achievement of the Project Outcome

Moderately Unsatisfactory Satisfactory

3 Efficiency Moderately Unsatisfactory Satisfactory

4 Overall Rating Moderately Unsatisfactory Satisfactory

5 Rating value 3 5

6 Weight (% disbursed before/after PDO change) 30% 70%

Weighted value (5 x 6) 0.9 3.5 4.4

Final rating (rounded) Moderately Satisfactory

Rounded to 4, which arrives at ”Moderately Satisfactory”

When the Project closed, its achievement in relation to the revised outcome indicators were successfully achieved as follows:

(i) The targets for the indicator ‘Improvement, by the end of the project, of the condition of roads to be rehabilitated under the project, measured in IRI’ was successfully achieved for Class I (3.6%), Class II (3.2%) and Class III (0.5%) roads at the network level.

(ii) The target for the indicator ‘Vehicle Operating Cost (VOC) on roads to be rehabilitated under the Project’ was 0.225 EUR per vehicle-kilometer and successfully achieved.

The following revised Output Indicators were successfully achieved:

• The targets for the number of kilometers of Class I, II and III roads rehabilitated under the Project were all achieved

• The required Works (W), Goods (G), and Consulting Services (CS) contracts were all successfully processed and managed by the Management Consultant. However, the targets in the restructuring paper should have been modified to reflect the reduced works packages that were formally dropped.

• The management consultant provided 2,774 hours of training to RIA staff, exceeding the target by 500 hours.

• The road safety strategy and plans were successfully prepared • Three PBC contracts were successfully prepared under the Project. RIA made additional

modifications to the contracts to be in line with the public procurement law and also consolidated two contracts into one; eventually tendering two PBC covering two motorway sections, which remain in operation.

The following Output Indicators were only partially achieved:

• The updating of road data for Class I, II and III roads (% of total length per year) was only partially completed. RIA claims has insufficient budget to collect all data on road network, especially for Class II and III roads.

14

• The implementation and effectiveness of the Road Management System (RMS) was only partially completed. Firstly, the automatic traffic counters were not procured, which are an important part of the optimization of the system. Secondly, the RMS did not reach full effectiveness because most of the trained personnel who can effectively use HDM-4 for strategic planning and programming purposes left RIA. This problem is further exacerbated by the lack of introducing RMS in management decision process.

• RIA prepared annual and three-year programs for maintenance; however they did not use RMS as a technical/economic basis for developing rolling multi-year programs. The usage of RMS as a technical/economic basis for decision making takes away the subjectivity of selection and prioritization of road maintenance and rehabilitation. It is important that RIA continue to improve their road management decision making systems in order to achieve sustainable development outcome.

The four Output Indicators relating to the consultancy services for project management support for operational programs; advisory services for road sector management; review/update of Project Management manuals; and studies on institutional set up, human resources and development of competencies in the sector were not achieved as a result of cancelation from the Project. However, the consultancy services have been undertaken in the meantime with RIAs own resources, and project preparation for OPT and OPRD were supported by local consultant. Despite the cancelation, the achievements can still be rated as moderately satisfactory as a result of RIA’s own intervention and efforts.

3.3 Efficiency Efficiency is rated as satisfactory.

After project completion, the Borrower carried out an ex-post economic evaluation of the 6 lots implemented under the Project, including 21 road sections covering 310.2km. The ex-post economic evaluation was done using the HDM-4 model adopting an evaluation period of 15 years and a discount rate of 12 percent. Vehicle operating costs were derived for the three vehicle types which predominate in the traffic mix based on current vehicle fleet characteristics. The new economic evaluation would supersede the economic analysis done at project appraisal. The Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) was recalculated for the 21 project roads (Annex 3) by updating the baseline economic data with actual construction costs (US$/km) and latest traffic growth rates (vehicles/day). An evaluation of the annual traffic growth rate observed on project roads from 2005 to 2010 shows that the average annual traffic growth rate was on average about 2 percent per year, which is half of what was estimated at appraisal. The ex-post EIRRs show a significant variance, ranging from 15.9 and 86.0 percent. All individual road sections have an EIRR higher than 12 percent under the project scenario. The overall EIRR is 28.3 percent, which is higher than the overall EIRR estimated at appraisal for the 6 lots (25.8 percent), indicating that the project has a robust economic justification. The ex-post economic evaluation results show that the project benefits are higher than the ones estimated at appraisal due to the lower actual rehabilitation costs per km, despite the lower than expected annual traffic growth rate measured from 2005 to 2010. More details on Economic and Financial Analysis are available in Annex 3.

3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating Rating: Moderately Satisfactory

The overall outcome is rated moderately satisfactory, because of the relevance of PDOs, Project design and implementation to the Bank’s current CPS, national and global priorities, the moderately satisfactory achievement of the PDOs, and the satisfactory efficiency of the project. The main civil works component

15

was successfully completed in accordance with the revised scope in the restructuring – the quality of works was good and there were no outstanding social or environmental issues. The main drawbacks in the Project were in relation to implementation delays and partial execution of the institutional component. Although the outcome was achieved, there is a risk of the benefits diminishing if road management / financing capacity are not improved; hence the rating for the Project is moderately satisfactory.

3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts (a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development As mentioned in the Beneficiary Survey (Annex 5), there have been overwhelmingly positive responses from residents living along the road, local businesses and the road safety of the users. The better road quality has reduced commuting times between villages and towns significantly, allowing much easier access to markets and key services such as healthcare and education. Public transportation companies have increased the regularity of its trip schedules, allowing much more frequent low-cost commutes. This is especially important to the vulnerable population such as the elderly, children and pregnant mothers – regular bus services allow them to reach schools and hospitals much easier. In addition, the Project has most certainly contributed to economic development by reducing transportation costs and opening economic opportunities for communities living along the completed roads – better linking them to central business districts and providing an outlet for agricultural products and commercial goods. (b) Institutional Change/Strengthening

Since the Bank’s initial involvement in 2005/2007, there has been numerous restructurings within RIA and many changes in terms of management and technical personnel. Despite this, RIA has still retained a lot of its strengths in terms of road engineering and maintenance, which have always been at the core of the business. The agency continues to develop and this has become ever so important since EU accession and pressure to absorb EU funds. The involvement of the World Bank through the project has had a positive influence on institutional capacity building within RIA, especially in terms of new procurement practices; monitoring and evaluation; and safeguard compliance in project. The Bank has introduced many new concepts under this project, which were critical in ensuring sustainability in the road sector. The institutional strengthening activities relating to RMS has given RIA the tools to be able to effectively manage its road network and strategically prioritize and plan works to optimize the lifecycle cost of its assets. As mentioned previously, more training and additional resources need to be allocated to the RMS for its full effectiveness. The introduction of PBC has also opened up a more efficient and cost-effective contracting methodology for routine and periodic maintenance of the road network. It is important that this progress is sustained in coming years and phased into the existing area-wide maintenance contracts which are currently in operation. Finally, road safety capacity of the borrower has also been raised significantly as a result of the Bank’s technical assistance relating to the training of the road safety auditors, road safety value engineering on the completed road sections and removal of black spots. Although this is a positive start, it is paramount that these efforts continue in terms of additional training, more collaboration between traffic police and RIA, and better overall governance of road safety at the ministerial level. (c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts (positive or negative)

The beneficiary survey showed that the completed road sections had tremendous benefits on the local population residing in the local villages and towns. As a result of improved ride quality and commuting time between villages and major towns, there has been a noticeable increase in public transportation with more regular schedules. This is critically important when it comes to connecting local people to key services such as education and healthcare – many hospitals are far away from poorer districts, but now

16

ambulances can easily access these areas in much faster time. In addition, the level of tourism to local museums and other attractions has also increased as a result of better connectivity.

3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops Refer to Summary of Beneficiary Survey in Annex 5.

4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome Rating: Moderate

The government continues to support the improvement of first, second and third class roads outside the TEN-T road network and this is evidenced by the sustainability goals listed in the draft Road Sector Strategy. The Strategy stresses the importance of achieving a sustainable road network by 2020 and includes proportionate budget allocations for rehabilitation and maintenance of the secondary road network, as well as the motorways and first class roads. However, there are still concerns that newly rehabilitated road sections under this project will not be adequately maintained post-construction, due to inefficient road management and inadequate budgetary allocation. Institutional strengthening of RIA should continue until the RMS is fully operational and road maintenance / rehabilitation programming capabilities are optimized. In terms of road safety, RIA has certainly taken a step in the right direction, but there is still plenty more to be done in terms of governance and planning of road safety activities within the ministry and RIA.

5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance 5.1 Bank Performance (a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry Rating: Satisfactory

Overall, the Project was well prepared and reflected the government’s priorities at the time of appraisal. The selection of the road sections were appropriately justified based on sound economic criteria and needs assessment of the country. The inclusion of the Road Management System (RMS) and Performance Based Contracts (PBC) for the first time was very valuable in introducing international best practices in road management. However, the dissemination of RMS training could have been better structured and targeted at technical and managerial staff to ensure proficient competency and manager “buy-in” to the new system and to manage the risk of the high staff rotation in RIA. The inclusion of the road safety component was also very important and was appropriately focused on removing trouble road safety locations (black spots) from the network and training road safety auditors in international best practices – as a result this had a very positive impact on the road safety improvements undertaken on the completed road section under the Project. (b) Quality of Supervision Rating: Satisfactory

The Bank team conducted regular supervision missions and maintained close motoring of the civil works. Since there were very limited issues with construction quality and environmental safeguards throughout the Project, the quality of supervision of civil works component can be considered satisfactory. There were some shortfalls in the supervision of the institutional component, especially in relation to the effectiveness of the RMS. Aide-memoires stated that the RMS was full operational and being used for road programming, when in fact this was not used for management decision-making. However, all the necessary equipment, software and training were in place and data collection is ongoing. The Bank supervision was very responsive to the government when they asked to include new priorities. Aide-memoire and ISRs were prepared on time and with high quality.

17

(c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance Rating: Satisfactory The satisfactory rating reflects the satisfactory rating for quality at entry and the satisfactory rating for Project supervision.

5.2 Borrower Performance (a) Government Performance Rating: Moderately Satisfactory

The majority of the Project implementation delays were as a result of the government’s austerity measures and constant restructurings within RIA management. Firstly, the government had to deal with the global financial crises in the rest of the country and it could be justified to hold back spending while the economy stabilizes. However, the government’s commitment towards first, second and third class roads outside of TEN-T became less of a priority as the Project matured, leading to excessive budget cuts within RIA and inability to disburse the counterpart funds. Secondly, the constant restructurings within RIA were causing bottlenecks in decision making and delayed procurement considerably throughout the Project. It took almost two months, after the Government’s request for restructuring, to reach a common understanding among the various stakeholders in Bulgaria on the scope of the technical assistance to support EU Funds absorption to be provided under the proposed project restructuring. In addition, the World Bank restructuring process both on Bank side and review process from MoF took another two months, which left very limited time for completing the approval process in 2011. This had a detrimental effect on the Project because additional consultancy services envisioned in the restructuring were already delayed by 6 months and some had to be canceled due to changes in the business environment. (b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance Rating: Moderately Satisfactory

One of the most significant shortcomings of RIA was in relation to the cancelation of the consultancy services and automatic traffic counters under the RMS. RIA was faced with management changes, loss of employees and budgetary constraints throughout the Project and most of this was out of their control. However, the agency could have been more proactive, especially in relation to timely decision making regarding procurement and clear administrative steps. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance

Rating: Moderately Satisfactory

The moderately satisfactory rating reflects the moderately satisfactory rating for government performance and the moderately satisfactory rating for RIA performance.

6. Lessons Learned

• Project should have included the design and supervision under the activities funded by the loan. The delays at the beginning (which required the 24 month extension) were due to delays by RIA in hiring their own consultants to do the designs, review the designs, which delayed launching of procurement of works; and in hiring the supervision consultants, which at times delayed contractors’ mobilization.

• Bureaucratic processing timeline. The restructuring under this Project and the completion of government approval procedure was completed just 3 days before project closing and almost jeopardized the achievement of the development objective – this needs to be mitigated with clear commitments in advance.

18

• Organizational stability of the Borrower. Due to the extensive changes within RIA’s project implementation unit, it would have been advantageous to strengthen the unit to independently manage Bank projects and its own resources without political interference.

• Early training on FIDIC & World Bank procurement guidelines. Since this was the first road sector investment loan by IBRD, there should have been training on implementing the contractual terms of FIDIC at the very start of the Project. There were many bottlenecks in procurement procedures at the commencement and the end of construction, and in regards to warranty deadlines. It was often difficult to find a common ground between the contractual terms of FIDIC and Bulgarian legislation Budgetary constraints. There needs to be long-term financial commitments from the Borrower at the signing of the loan to mitigate the risks of budget cutbacks for the project.

• Adopting a twin-training approach when implementing RMS for the first time. Despite the implementation of RMS hardware and software, the system is still not fully effective because there are limited trained personnel and lack of management support. It would have been advantageous for the consultant’s TOR to have included incremental training at both technical and managerial levels. This twin-training approach would ensure that (i) technical capacity in operating the system is optimized and (ii) management can take ownership of the system and fully utilize it for multi-year programming of maintenance and rehabilitation.

• Road safety value engineering at the design review stage is very effective in enhancing road safety and adding additional socio-economic benefits to projects. Many of the completed road sections under the Project incorporated road safety improvements such as re-designed junction layouts, crossing points and traffic calming measures. The beneficiaries of the Project have expressed their gratitude for these additional measures and have already notices a reduction in road accidents.

• Adopting hybrid rehabilitation and maintenance contracts using both traditional and performance-based contracting methodology. Since the majority of Bulgaria’s Class II and III roads are in bad condition, RIA considers that it is difficult to adopt only maintenance PBC over large areas. However, it would be advantageous to adopt area-based hybrid contracts which include traditional (input-based) methodology for rehabilitation, followed by PBC methodology for summer and winter maintenance. However, these contracts are long in duration (5 – 10 years) and therefore very dependent on long-term budget allocation – therefore financial commitment is a perquisite.

7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners (a) Borrower/implementing agencies

The Borrower’s ICR has been provided in Annex 7. Technical comments on the draft ICR were received from RIA and Ministry of Finance and reflected in accordingly.

(b) Cofinanciers N/A (c) Other partners and stakeholders N/A

19

Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing

(a) Project Cost by Component (EUR Million with VAT)

Components Appraisal Estimate (EUR millions)

Actual/Latest Estimate (EUR millions)

Percentage of Appraisal

1. Rehabilitation of selected roads 140.15 94.604 68% 2. Institutional development 2.41 2.175 90% 3. Road safety 1.44 0.206 14%

Total Baseline Cost 144.00 97.146 67%

Physical Contingencies 0.00

0.00

-

Price Contingencies 0.00

0.00

-

Total Project Costs 144.00 97.146 67% Front-end fee PPF 0.00 0.00 - Front-end fee IBRD 0.00 0.00 -

Total Financing Required 144.00 97.146 67%

(b) Financing

Source of Funds Type of Cofinancing

Appraisal Estimate

(EUR millions)

Actual/Latest Estimate

(EUR millions)

Percentage of Appraisal

Borrower 54.00 20.150 37% International Bank for Reconstruction and Development 90.00 76.835 85%

20

Annex 2. Outputs by Component

Output Indicators Status at

Closing7 Remarks Baseline Original Target

First RS 04/14/2011

Component 1 Number of

kilometers of Class I roads rehabilitated under the Project

0 km 174 km 117 km 117.24km Successfully achieved. Formally

revised target reduced as a result of restructuring.

Number of kilometers of Class II

roads rehabilitated under the Project

0 km 138 km 127 km 130 km Successfully achieved. Formally


Number of kilometers of Class

III roads rehabilitated under the Project

0 km 138 km 63 km 62.89 km Successfully achieved. Formally


Component 2 Consultant Services

for Project Management support

for operational programs

0 staff-months -

260 cumulative

staff-months

0 cumulative

staff-months

This activity was canceled because the consultancy services were

carried out in-house by consultant, JASPERS.

Consultant and advisory services for

road sector management

0 staff-months -

24 cumulative

staff-months

18 cumulative

staff-months

This activity was partially achieved through the 18 month contract of the Highway Advisor procured under this Project. It should be

noted additional advisory services were carried out in-house by RIA’s

local consultant. Project management manuals reviewed, finalized and in use

No - Yes No This was completed with RIA’s own funds under the in-house

consultancy contract Studies on

institutional set up, human resources and

development of competencies in the sector carried out

No - Yes No This activity was canceled by RIA.

Works (W), Goods (G), and Consulting

Services (CS) contracts processed

and managed by Management Consultant

0 (W), 0 (G), 0 (CS)

9 (W); 8 (G); 2 (CS)

- 6 (W); 13 (G); 5 (CS)

The actual target was actually achieved. The number of civil

works contracts was reduced from 9 to 6 as part of the restructuring; however this was not reflected in

the revised results framework.

Training received by RIA staff from management

Consultant (in staff-

0 1,700 2,200 2,774 Successfully achieved

7 Values are obtained from Borrower’s Report

21

hours)

Updating of road data for Class I roads (% of total length per

year)

0% 100% - 80% It is expected that this will be

achieved within 6 months of the project closing.

Updating of road data for Class II roads (%

of total length per year)

0% 50% - 25% Due to insufficient budget, not all

road data is being collected for Class II roads

Updating of road data for Class III roads (%

of total length per year)

0% 15% - 10% Due to insufficient budget, not all

road data is being collected for Class III roads

Implementation and Effective use of Road Management System

by RIA

No Yes - Partially

Only partially implemented because automatic traffic counters

were not procured. In terms of effectiveness, the RMS is not being

used to its full potential (refer to Section 2.2 for more details).

Rolling Multi-year road maintenance and

rehabilitation program established

No Yes - Partially

Although RIA has prepared annual and three-year programs for maintenance, they are not

developing rolling multi-year programs using the newly procured

Road Management System (Indicator 13).

Capacity of RIA to manage road

maintenance: number of area-wide maintenance

contracts prepared

0 3 - 3

Three PBC contracts were prepared under the Project. RIA made

additional modifications to the contracts and eventually tendered two PBC covering two motorway

sections. Component 3 Road safety strategy and plans prepared No Yes - Yes This was successfully achieved.

22

Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis At appraisal, a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) was conducted for the rehabilitation of all road sections to be included in the project. The evaluation was done with the Highway Development and Management Model (HDM-4), which simulates life-cycle predictions of road deterioration, road works effects and their costs and road user costs, and provides economic decision criteria for road construction and maintenance works. HDM-4 analyses projects by computing costs and benefits of different investment options in terms of savings in road maintenance costs, vehicle operating costs, travel time costs and accident costs. The analysis was done for an evaluation period of 15 years and a discount rate of 12 percent. The appraisal CBA evaluated 30 road sections totaling about 450 km of class I, II and III national roads in different regions of Bulgaria that were grouped into 9 lots. The 2005 traffic ranged from 500 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT), in vehicles per day, for low traffic roads to about 8,500 AADT for high traffic ones, with a weighted average of 1,979 AADT. The traffic composition varied across the regions and for different road classes. An annual 4 percent increase in traffic has been assumed for all vehicle types in the appraisal analysis. The estimated total cost of the rehabilitation works was US$186.7 million, including VAT, which corresponds to about US$450,000 per km. The economic internal rate of return (EIRR) for the project roads varied between 13.1 and 134.4 percent with a weighted average of 25.1 percent. All individual road sections resulted having an EIRR higher than 12 percent under the project scenario. Table 1 presents the project roads analyzed at appraisal.

Table 1: Project Roads Analyzed at Appraisal Total Average Estimated Appraisal

Length AADT Cost EIRR

Lot Section Road Site and Sections (km) (2005) (M US$) (%) Lot 1 1 II-11 Vidin - Lom (km 0+000 - km 10+872) 10.87 2,291 47.7 North-western 2 II-11 Vidin - Lom (km 14+010 - km 15+990) 1.98 2,291 22.4 3 II-11 Vidin - Lom (km 31+873 - km 41+914) 10.04 605 19.8 4 II-11 Lom - Kovachitsa (km 49+691 - km 57+691) 8.00 962 13.1 5 II-11 Lom - Kovachitsa (km 68+279 - km 71+979) 3.70 630 15.4 6 II-11 Lom - Gigen (km102+200 - km104+750) 2.55 1,754 36.3 Lot 1 Total 37.14 1,347 10.1 27.4 Lot 2 North- western 7 II-15 Vratsa - Oriahovo (km 0+000 - km 2+895) 2.89 5,490 36.6 and Central north 8 II-11

Guliantsi - Milkovitsa (km 174+864 - km 196+147) 21.28 1,261 25.1

9 II-35 Pleven - Troian - Karnare (km 46+179 -km 66+500) 20.32 4,164 14.9

44.49 1,431 19.4 21.2 Lot 3 10 II-23 Rousse - Silistra (km 94+200 - km 116+564) 22.36 1,737 36.7 North- eastern 11 II-51 Popovo - Dralfa (km 52+149 - km 63+790) 11.64 2,298 73.7

12 II-51 Dralfa - Chudomir (km 70+700 - km 75+000) 4.30 1,974 47.0

13 II-29 Varna - Dobrich District border (km 4+000 - km 5+400) 1.40 8,547 58.4

14 II-29 Varna - b.r. Dobrich (km 7+058 - km 10+400) 3.34 8,547 58.4

15 II-29 Varna - off-site road Dobrich (km 11+500 - km 16+200) 4.08 6,780 32.1

16 III-235 Glavinitsa - Zafirovo (km 25+200 - 39+117) 13.92 897 56.7 Lot 3 Total 61.04 2,535 24.9 50.4 Lot 4 Southwestern 17 I-6 Sofia - Pirdop (km133+731 - km 189+600) 55.87 3,277 19.6 Lot 4 Total 55.87 3,277 31.8 19.6

23

Lot 5 Central south 18 I-6

Pirdop - Karlovo - Kalofer (km 242+900 - km 264+925) 22.03 4,804 26.7

19 III-

8604 Plovdiv - Biala Cherkva - Kosovo (km 0+000 - km 12+000) 3.00 1,319 134.3

20 III-663 b.r. Chirpan - Zetovo (km 0+000 - km 4+700) 4.70 818 27.5

21 III-807

Varbica - Skobelevo (b.r. Chipan - Zetevo) (km 0+000 - km 11+800) and bridge repair over Maritsa river 11.80 818 27.5

Lot 5 Total 41.53 2,969 17.0 34.8 Lot 6 North-eastern 22 I-7

Shumen - Preslav (km120+859 - km 139+000) 18.14 2,116 17.6

23 I-7 Preslav - Varbitsa (km 146+000 - km 147+700) 1.70 886 15.3

24 I-7 Preslav - Varbitsa (km 165+250 - km 176+200) 10.95 1,097 30.7

Lot 6 Total 30.79 1,686 12.5 22.1 Lot 7 Southwestern 25 II-63

Pernik - Strezimirovtsi (km 43+300 to km 52+300) 9.00 768 16.3

26 III-

6301 Filipovtsi - Glogovitsa-Trun (km 0+000 - km 12+000) 12.00 600 13.5

27 III-813 Dragoman -Vrabcha (km 29+000 - km 56+700) 27.70 500 13.5

Lot 7 48.70 574 13.9 14.0 Lot 8 Southwestern 28 III-198

G. Delchev - Pirin village (km 0+000 - km 33+590) 33.60 726 21.3

29 III-198 Petrich - border check-point – FYR Macedonia (km 60+200 - km 91+603) 31.40 2,105 24.0

Lot 8 Total 65.00 1,392 23.3 22.6

Lot 9 Southeastern 30 I-9

Burgas - Marinka - Zvezdetz - Malko Tarnovo - border check point-Turkey (km 247+135 - km 309+135) 65.00 1,242 13.7

Lot 9 Total

65.00 1,242 33.9 13.7 TOTAL 449.56 1,979 186.7 25.1

The ex-post economic evaluation considered only the lots implemented under the project, for which actual rehabilitation costs were obtained. Table 2 presents the estimated cost per km at appraisal and the actual cost per km for the 6 road sections. On average the actual rehabilitation costs per km are 78 percent of the estimated costs at appraisal.

Table 2: Estimated and Actual Costs for Lots Implemented with the Project

Estimated Cost Actual Cost Cost per km

Cost Length Cost per

km Cost Length Cost per

km Actual per Lot (US$ M) (km) (US$/km) (US$ M) (km) (US$/km) Estimated Lot 1 North-western region 10.1 27.4 367,895 11.9 36.6 324,409 0.88 Lot 2 North- western and Central north region 19.4 44.5 437,132 17.3 47.3 364,897 0.83 Lot 3 North- eastern region 24.9 61.0 407,733 17.5 46.1 379,011 0.93 Lot 4 Southwestern region 31.8 55.9 569,608 18.7 55.4 337,274 0.59 Lot 8 Southwestern region 23.3 65.0 357,785 21.1 62.9 335,311 0.94 Lot 9 Southeastern region 33.9 65.0 520,985 22.1 61.8 357,641 0.69 Total 143.3 318.8 449,699 108.5 310.2 349,835 0.78

An evaluation of the annual traffic growth rate observed on 14 project roads from 2005 to 2010 shows that the average annual traffic growth rate was on average about 2 percent per year, which is half of what was estimated at appraisal. The average current traffic composition of the project roads is 70 percent cars, 2 percent buses and 28 percent trucks. An evaluation of the roughness measurements done after the rehabilitation of the road works shows that the roughness of the roads after the rehabilitation is on average about 1.3 IRI, m/km, which is slightly lower than what was estimated at appraisal 1.5 IRI, m/km. The ex-

24

post economic evaluation was done using the HDM-4 model adopting the same evaluation structure done at appraisal, but considering actual rehabilitation cost, roughness after road works and traffic growth rate for the 2005 to 2010 period. Table 3 presents the ex-post economic evaluation results per road section. The ex-post EIRR for the project roads varies between 15.9 and 86.0 percent with a weighted average of 28.3 percent. All individual road sections have an EIRR higher than 12 percent under the project scenario.

Table 3: Ex-Post Economic Evaluation Results

Total Actual Ex-Post

Length Cost EIRR

Lot Section Road Site and Sections (km) (M

US$) (%) Lot 1 1 II-11 Vidin - Lom (km 0+000 - km 10+924) 10.9 56.5 North-western 2 II-11 Vidin - Lom (km 14+010 - km 16+115) 2.1 26.6 3 II-11 Vidin - Lom (km 31+873 - km 43+500) 11.6 23.8 4 II-11 Lom - Kovachitsa (km 49+691 - km 57+747) 8.1 15.9 5 II-11 Lom - Kovachitsa (km 68+279 - km 70+223) 1.9 17.9 6 II-11 Lom - Gigen (km102+200 - km104+175) 2.0 44.2 Lo1 Total 36.6 11.9 32.8 Lot 2 North- western 7 II-15 Vratsa - Oriahovo (km 0+000 - km 3+028) 3.0 40.8

and Central north 8 II-11 Gulyntsi - Milkovitsa (km 174+867 - km 196+144) 21.3 28.7

9 II-35 Pleven - Troyan - Karnare (km 46+105 -km 66+410) 20.3 16.7

10 II-11 Passage throuth Gigen (km 172+164 - km 174+867) 2.7 16.7

47.3 17.3 23.6 Lot 3 11 II-23 Isperih - Dulovo (km 94+200 - km 116+445) 22.2 42.9 North- eastern 12 II-51 Popovo - Dralfa (km 52+420 - km 63+745) 11.3 86.0 13 II-51 Dralfa - Chudomir (km 70+700 - km 75+000) 4.3 55.6 14 II-29 Varna - Dobrich (km 7+057 - km 10+419) 3.4 62.4 15 II-29 Varna - Dobrich (km 16+124 - km 20+470) 4.3 34.7

16 II-49 and II-51 Roundabout km 11+888 Road II-49 0.5 34.7

Lot 3 Total 46.1 17.5 55.2 Lot 4 Southwestern 17 I-6 Sofia - Pirdop (km133+895 - km 189+292) 55.4 21.6 Lot 4 Total 55.4 18.7 21.6

Lot 8 Southwestern 18 III-198 G. Delchev - Pirin village (km 2+634 - km 33+542) 30.9 24.8

19 III-198 Petrich - border check-point – FYR Macedonia (km 60+200 - km 92+185) 32.0 28.6

Lot 8 Total 62.9 21.1 26.7

Lot 9 Southeastern 21 I-9

Burgas - Marinka - Zvezdetz - Malko Tarnovo - border check point-Turkey (km 247+135 - km 308+976) 61.8 16.6

Lot 9 Total 61.8 22.1 16.6 TOTAL 310.2 108.5 28.3

The ex-post economic evaluation results show that the project benefits are higher than the ones estimated at appraisal due to the lower actual rehabilitation costs per km, despite the lower than expected annual traffic growth rate measured from 2005 to 2010. Table 4 compares the appraisal EIRR and the ex-post EIRR for the 6 lots implemented with project funds. The ex-post overall EIRR is 28.3 percent, which is higher than the overall EIRR estimated at appraisal for the 6 lots (25.8 percent), indicating that the project has a robust economic justification.

25

Table 4: Appraisal and Ex-Post Economic

Evaluation Results Appraisal Ex-Post EIRR EIRR Lot (%) (%) Lot 1 North-western region 27.4 32.8 Lot 2 North- western and Central north region 21.2 23.6 Lot 3 North- eastern region 50.4 55.2 Lot 4 Southwestern region 19.6 21.6 Lot 8 Southwestern region 22.6 26.7 Lot 9 Southeastern region 13.7 16.6 Total 25.8 28.3

26

Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes (a) Task Team members

Names Title Unit Responsibility Lending Doncho Petrov Barbalov Operations Officer ECSIE-HIS Bogdan Constantin Constantinescu Senior Financial Management Specialist ECSO3 Mohammed Dalil Essakali Senior Infrastructure Economist AFTTR Blaga Djourdjin Procurement Specialist ECSO2 Ruxandra Maria Floroiu Senior Environmental Engineer EASER Vladislav Krasikov Senior Procurement Specialist EASR1 Mirela Mart Consultant ECSOQ Antti P. Talvitie Consultant ECSTR Terje Wolden Consultant ECSTR Romain Pison Junior Professional Associate ECSTR Julia Alexandrova Tomova Junior Professional Associate ECSIE-HIS

Supervision/ICR Rakesh Tripathi ICR TTL and Primary Author ECSTR Michael Butler JPA and ICR Secondary Author ECSTR Rodrigo Archondo-Callao Senior Highway Engineer ECSTR Bogdan Constantin Constantinescu Senior Financial Management Specialist ECSO3 Juderica Zilla Josephine Dias Senior Executive Assistant DECDG Orlin M. Dikov Senior Operations Officer ECSTR Blaga Djourdjin Procurement Specialist ECSO2 Albena Alexandrova Samsonova Program Assistant ECCBG Ziad Salim EL Nakat Transport Specialist MNSTI Ruxandra Maria Floroiu Senior Environmental Engineer EASER Henry G. R. Kerali Country Director ECCU3 Alejandro Lopez Martinez Junior Professional Associate ECSTR Eolina Petrova Milova Operations Officer ECSUW Sylvia Nikolova Stoynova Operations Officer ECCBG Jukka-Pekka Strand Young Professional YPP Antti P. Talvitie Consultant ECSTR Ivelina Todorova Taushanova Communications Officer ECCBG Toma Alexandrov Yanakiev E T Consultant ECSTR (b) Staff Time and Cost

Stage of Project Cycle Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only)

No. of staff weeks USD Thousands (including travel and consultant costs)

Lending FY06 38.09 FY07 224.39 FY08 4.45

Total: 266.93 Supervision/ICR

FY06 0.00 FY07 0.00 FY08 100.35

Total: 100.35

27

Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results As part of the ICR mission the World Bank team conducted site visits to four out of six of the completed lots to assess the quality of construction and also take an opportunity to interview some of the local people living and working near the rehabilitated road sections. The overall reaction from the beneficiaries was positive and they were very appreciative of the investments for the tertiary class road network. The Bank team was informed that the existing project roads were in poor condition and in much need of rehabilitation. The completed road sections have dramatically improved the livelihood of (i) road users, in terms of driving comfort and vehicle operating costs; (ii) local businesses, as a result of improved trade and connectivity; and (iii) local inhabitants due to improved accessibility to key health & education services and better road safety as results of traffic calming measure in populated location. The residents of Svetlen Village (Lot 3) confirmed that roads safety has improved significantly since the rehabilitation of the road. The reconstruction comprised a redesign of the main road junction into a Y-junction which has prevented many car accidents due to its safer layout and traffic calming potential. “In the past many speeding (and drunk) drivers crashed into the church yard, but after the road rehabilitation there were no reported accidents in the village”, several residents testified. Another major improvement according to the people of the village is the renovated sidewalks, which are highly appreciated as this is the latest new infrastructure in the village for many years. Furthermore, residents can now cross the road safely as result of modified speed bump crossings, which have been very effective at reducing the speed of incoming traffic. According to citizens of Varna the renovated road (Lot 3) has significantly improved ride quality and shortened the commuting time between Varna and Dobrich to 15 minutes. Travel time was shortened by at least 30 minutes for citizens of Malko Tarnovo (Lot 9). According to local residents, even public transport is faster now and has made its schedules more regular. This is crucially important when it comes to ambulances because there is no hospital in Malko Tarnovo and often the residents go by ambulance to Bourgas, the regional center. “There are three roads connecting our town with other towns, but this is our main road”, Silvia Baleva from Malko Tarnovo says. She works as tourist guide in the local museum and testifies that the number of tourists has doubled since the reconstruction of the road, benefiting numerous local businesses.

28

Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results N/A

REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE AGENCY

RIA – Rehabilitation of the Road Infrastructure Project 29

Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR

ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE AGENCY

PROJECT ON REHABILITATION OF THE ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE

(IBRD Loan No.: 4865 - BUL)

CONTRIBUTION OF THE BORROWER REPORT ON PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION OUTCOMES

JUNE 2013



Contents

I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 31

II. Description of the Project – Objectives of the Project, Main Indicators, Information on the Implementation of the Project ............................................................................................................... 32

III Environment .................................................................................................................................. 39

IV Indicators Achieved ..................................................................................................................... 39

V Challenges / Lessons Learnt .................................................................................. 39 VI Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 40

VII Support on Behalf of the Bank ................................................................................................... 40

VIII Appendices ................................................................................................................................. 40

Appendix 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 40

Appendix 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 43



I. Introduction The Republic of Bulgaria is a European country, located in the Eastern part of the Balkan Peninsular, which takes 22 % of its territory. To the North it borders with Romania, to the South – with Greece and Turkey, to the West with the Former Yugoslav Republic (FYR) of Macedonia and Serbia and to the East – with the Black Sea. The territory of Bulgaria exceeds 110 square kilometers and according to the 2011 census, the population of the country is almost 7.4 million people. The economy of the country is a highly open market economy, which according to external evaluation occupies the 70th place in the world. It is relatively industrialized, with a private sector developed at an average level and a small number of preserved strategic state enterprises. According to its economic development today, Bulgaria falls within the group of the developing countries. Regardless of its economic development in the past few years, Bulgaria still has the lowest per capita GDP in the European Union.

The transport location of Bulgaria is especially favorable. It is an important crossroad, connecting Central Europe, the Middle East and the Mediterranean.

Five out of the ten Trans-European transport corridors - № 4, № 7 (the Danube River), № 8, № 9 and №10, pass through the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria, which occupies a strategic geographical position within Europe and on the Balkan Peninsular, and three of them - № 4, № 7 and № 10, play an important role in the integration of the EU transport network with that of neighboring geographical regions and continents – Asia, Africa and the Near East, as well as in the economic opening of the EU towards the markets and the raw materials of the East.

The road network in Bulgaria consists of republican road network and municipal road network, the division is being done on the basis of the administrative and economic significance of the roads, as well as their function within the transportation system. The republican road network consists of roads which ensure the transport connections of national importance and routes of state interest. It has been developed with sufficient density but its state and maintenance level are unsatisfactory. At the moment, a number of programs and projects, funded with European funds and loans from IBRD and EIB are in place, their purpose being the construction of new and the improvement of the existing infrastructure. The total length of the republican road network in Bulgaria is 19 602 km, of which 541 km of highways and 2 975 km I Class roads, 4035 km II Class roads and 12 051 km III Class roads.

The Ministry of Regional Development manages the republican and municipal road networks in Bulgaria.

The Road Infrastructure Agency is directly responsible for the Republican network, as a second level budget spending unit under the Ministry of Regional Development. It consists of Central Administration (Headquarters), comprised of twelve Directorates and specialized units, represented by twenty seven Regional Road Departments and a Central Institute of Road Technologies, National and European Norms and Standards. The Road Infrastructure Agency is managed by a Management Board, which comprises of a Chair and two Board members. The total number of employees within the Central Administration and the specialized units reaches 1523 people.



The Road Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project is the first project in the Road Sector in Bulgaria, funded through a loan from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and funds from the republican budget. The total amount of the project is Euro 144 million. According to the Loan Agreement signed on September 19, 2007, the deadline for the implementation of the project is no later than June 30, 2011. Through the amendment of the Loan Agreement, ratified on June 22, 2011 and promulgated on June 24, 2011, the deadline for the completion of the project was extended to June 30, 2013. The financial scheme was also changed.

II. Description of the Project – Objectives of the Project, Main Indicators, Information on the Implementation of the Project

II.1 Project Objectives

The goal of the project is to support the Republic of Bulgaria in reducing the expenditures on road accidents through improvement of the state and quality of the road network in the country in the first years after its EU accession. The objectives of the project can be met through: а. Improving the condition of roads Class I, II and III and the ensuing reduction in the expenses of the road users. b. Enhancing RIA capacity to stimulate the policy on efficient planning and efficient management of the programs on road maintenance, rehabilitation and construction. c. Assisting the Republic of Bulgaria in the development of the Road Safety Strategy and identification of the priority activities on improvement of the road safety.

II.2 Project Components

Component 1 – Rehabilitation of selected roads; Component 2 – Institutional development; Component 3 – Road safety.

II.3 Indicators

II.3.1 Outcomes

• Indicator 1 – Improving the condition of the roads which have to be rehabilitated under the project;

• Indicator 2 – Reducing operating expenditures for vehicles by at least 10 % along the roads, which have to be rehabilitated.

II.3.2 Intermediate Results

• Total number of rehabilitated roads Class one, two and three; • Updating the roads Class one, two and three data; • Number of contracts signed; • Training of RIA’s team of experts;



• Introduction and efficient use of the Road Management System; • Developing a system on preventive maintenance of roads; • Raising the qualification of RIA experts in the area of road infrastructure maintenance; • Advisory services to support the management of projects for operational programs; • Advisory services for the management of the Road Sector; • Guidelines on the management of projects, reviewed, completed and used; • Studies conducted on the institutional structure, human resources and development of

competencies within the sector; • Road safety strategies and plans developed.

II.4 Financial framework

The initial total value of the Project was calculated at EURO 144 Million. The participation of the Bank was carried out through a Loan Agreement for Euro 90 000 000 of September 19, 2007, with the partnership of the national budget in the amount of Euro 54 000 000 and duration until June 30, 2011. With the amendment of the Loan Agreement, ratified by law on June 22, 2011 and promulgated on June 24, 2011, the deadline for the absorption of the loan was extended to June 30, 2013 and the share of the co-funding from the national budget was reduced.

II.5 Project Implementation

II.5.1 Component 1 – implementation

Within the scope of Component 1, part 1, the rehabilitation of 450 km of roads Class one, two and three is included, grouped by regions (counties) into nine lots (Attachment 1 – Table 1). Assignments for the design of the specific sites were approved in 2006 and the procurement tenders for the selection of designers were carried out in 2007; the projects were developed in the period 2008-2009. International Competitive Biddings were conducted to select a Contractor for the construction works. By the end of 2009 and in early 2010 Contracts were signed for the nine lots. After the initial positive start in the implementation of the Component with the start of Lot 1 and 2 at the end of 2008, and lot 3 by the beginning of 2009, the Project was affected quite adversely by the raving global financial crisis. Construction works for Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 for which contracts were signed in late 2009 and early 2010, had to be delayed until 2011 and their completion deadlines extended. These actions were necessitated by the fact that the funds allocated through the 2010 State Budget Act for State Investment Loans (SIL) managed by the Ministry of Regional Development (MRD), respectively RIA were spent mostly for payment of 2009 obligations under SIL. The Bidding procedures for Lots 5, 6 and 7 for selection of construction supervision, in compliance with the Bulgarian legislation were cancelled and delayed due to unsecured financial resources and the structural changes that occurred, which impeded



additionally their start-up and implementation. While preparing the amendment of the Loan Agreement, Lots 5, 6 and 7 were cancelled. By June 30, 2009 only 8-9 % of the Loan proceeds were disbursed, which caused a delay in the overall program. The cumbersome and lengthy procedures for approval and coordination of certificates and invoices contribute in addition to these delays. Another problem ensuing from those are the delayed payments to contractors. The Employer receives claims for unpaid sums under certificates, and incurs losses due to interest payments and indemnities. In 2011 and 2012 one by one were completed construction works for lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9. Due to all these reasons stated in the Amendment to the Loan Agreement, extending the deadline for project completion was also included a change in the financial payment scheme and restructuring of Component 1, as the scope of the rehabilitated roads was reduced to 307 km (Attachment 1 – Table 2). The initial indicative value of the lots amounting to BGN 206 770 347.60 with VAT, as stated in the Procurement Plan to the Loan Agreement 4865-BUL, has not been achieved. The value of the signed contracts under the rehabilitation component amounts to BGN 142 886 368,61, VAT excluded. After the end of construction works and following the one year defect liability period, in compliance with the contract terms, the total amount disbursed for the lots is BGN 148 492 514,89, VAT excluded (Attachment 1 – Table 3). The increased prices of construction contracts are due mainly to: • Increased volume of the envisaged types of works because of the lengthy period for preparation of design documentation until the actual start-up of actual implementation, which resulted in deterioration of the condition of the sections selected for rehabilitation and increased volumes compared to those planned in the BoQs.

• Additional works included following the provisions of sub-clause 13.1 „Change order” of the terms of contract, due to the need to enhance traffic organization and road safety, as well as homogeneity of road infrastructure at local level; (Attachment 1 – Table 2б)

• Application of sub-clause 13.8 „Adjustment for cost changes”, as well as payment of Contractors’ claims under sub-clause 20.1 due to the longer period from the „Base date” to the implementation and accounting for Construction works, and the occurred economic changes that have brought about misbalance in adjustment coefficients.

Because of the great public interest and importance of transport infrastructure for the economic development of South-western and South-eastern regions in the country the possibilities for implementation of the following was considered: • By-pass of Gotse Delchev town from km 0+000 (km 86+135 on road II- 19 (to km 2+560.10 to km 3+643.26 on road III – 198)), that will take away the transit traffic from the centre of the town, and also a section on road III- 198 „Vranya-Chuchuligovo-Marino pole“ from km 51+000 to km 61+163, by which the entire rehabilitation of road III – 198 will be completed;



• By-pass road of Malko Tarnovo from км 2+603.73 to connection to road І-9 at km 314+400=364+331.10 and rehabilitation of a section on road I – 9 from km 314+400 border with the Republic of Turkey at km 318+566.

In November 2012 the Project Implementation Unit with RIA jointly with the Consultant (Project Management Team), following the Guidelines for procurement of goods, construction works and non-consulting services under IBRD loans and IDA credits of May 2004, as revised on 1 October 2006 and 1May 2010 , prepared Bidding Documents for selection of Contractors for construction works at sites: Lot 10 South-western region – By-pass of Gotse Delchev town and Road III- 198 „Vranya-Chuchuligovo-Marino pole “ and Lot 11 South-eastern region – By-pass of Malko Tarnovo and border with the Republic of Turkey from the Road Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project. The scope of the above-mentioned procedure was defined in the Procurement Plan enclosed with Loan Agreement 4865-BUL with the latest updates of December 2012 under line W-11. The final version of the Bidding documents in the Bulgarian language was sent to the IBRD mission in Bulgaria for mandatory review. As a result RIA received the required “no-objection” as per para 1.11 of the Guidelines for procurement of goods, construction works and non-consulting services under IBRD loans and IDA credits. In the course of preparation and coordination of the Invitation to bid in a National Competitive Bidding and the Decision for launching of a procurement procedure the Legal Directorate of the Project Contractor - RIA submitted a negative opinion, which coupled with the financial constraints of the 2012 budget and the short time remaining made their implementation impossible. The restrictions in the State Budget Act in the part relevant to externally financed projects through SILs and the observance of fiscal discipline in 2010, 2011 and 2012 resulted in Project delays and severely impeded RIA to implement Component 1 of the Loan Agreement by giving reasons to postpone construction works and extension of implementation in order to postpone payments for the next budget year.Within the scope of Component 1, part 2, an advisory service has been included, assisting RIA in the analysis and justification of works, review of projects, preparation of bidding documents and bid evaluation, as well as in the coordination and conducting of quality control of works and their supervision. The procedure for selection of a Consultant started in 2006, and a contract was signed with the awarded consultant – Mott Macdonald Ltd. on 24 July 2007, whose term was extended with the project restructuring. Throughout the consultancy period the Consultant has strictly performed its contractual obligations working in direct cooperation with the Project Implementation Unit with RIA and providing the required methodological guidance to the project contractor. In addition within the scope of these consultancy services a review was made of the training needs at RIA at both expert and management level and a training program was devised, which was implemented during the contract. In the process of project implementation, the following trainings of experts have been conducted at RIA:



• Training of auditors on road safety – the course was carried out in June 2008 and was successfully passed by experts from RIA and other state institutions; • Training to implement the contractual terms of Conditions of Contracts for construction of building and engineering works designed by the Employer, MDB harmonized edition, March 2006 which was carried out in 2012, and the participants in it were both at the expert and the managerial levels.

II.5.2 Component 2 – implementation

In support of the Project Implementer (RIA), The Ministry of transport and the Ministry of Regional Development purchased instrumentation for measuring, assessment and analysis of the road network condition. Due to differences with the Public Procurement Act the procedures were delayed. The instrumentation serves to support monitoring related to all operational programs financed through loan or national funds. The Road Management System developed under sub-component C-02 by Finroad Ltd. and the HDM-4 procured under sub-component G-09/1 cannot be used very efficiently due to the fact that it is not possible to export data from one system to another. That is why RIA is looking for options that would allow its full utilization. As a part of the implementation of sub-component С-02, Finroad Ltd. developed three pilot contracts for performance based road maintenance. They were used by RIA as a basis for signing of two maintenance contracts: Motorway Liulin and Motorway Trakia. The technical parameters of these contracts devised by Finroad Ltd. were used without adjustments, and the only changes made in these pilot contracts were related to their award due to the different public procurement rules in Bulgaria. A number of training events were carried out under sub-component С-05 for the employees of RIA at management and expert level in order to enhance their project management skills. A Table showing the implemented training events is attached to the report (Attachment – Table 4b) The task of the Consultant on main roads - sub-component C-11, was to strengthen the policies in Bulgaria’s road sector by providing strategic advice to top level politicians at MRD. In addition to these tasks included in the base contract, the Consultant provided to RIA its services in relation also to: - Review of the long-term plan for support and development of RIA and MRD - preparation of processes, preparation of plan for implementation of recommendations;

- Review of the TORs for traffic counters financed under OP Regional Development and OP Transport, and thanks to the provided help, the procedure for procurement of traffic counters under OP Regional Development was successfully finalised and a contract was later signed with the selected contractor. A similar Public Procurement procedure is to be carried out under OP Transport;

- Review and good-quality implementation of projects signed under the MOU;



- Arrangement of a working visit of RIA employees in Lithuania.

This working visit took place in September 2012 under the leadership of eng. Iliana Zaharieva - member of the Managing Board of RIA. Meetings were carried out at the scientific institute for transport and road infrastructure in Kaunas, the Lithuanian road administration and the state company „Problematika”. Good practices for road sector management and maintenance were exchanged. The procedure for selection of a Consultant to support management of projects under OP Transport and OP Regional Development - sub-component С-12, took place based on Quality-cots based selection method. That service was included in the project during its restructuring, which became effective on June 22, 2011 in relation to the MOU for extended cooperation for infrastructure development in the Republic of Bulgaria signed on August 10, 2010 between the prime-minister of the Republic of Bulgaria and the President of IBRD (the World Bank). The main purpose of the consulting service was to guarantee the timely and effective utilization of available EU funds for the road sector in Bulgaria, while building up capacity at MRD and RIA in the field of road-transport project planning, programming and management. The development of the TOR began in summer 2010 and was completed by the end of the year. The focus was on the great delay in the preparation and the procedures for approval, contracting and implementation of key projects. Within the one year period between the establishment of the need to procure a Consultant (mid 2010) and the effective loan restructuring (mid 2011) the qualification of the employees at MRD and RIA administrations was improved as evidenced by the degree of absorption of road sector funds under OPT and OPRD. This is also confirmed by the successful start-up and already pretty advanced in their implementation road projects, as well as by the preparation of the key and alternative OPT projects for the period 2014-2020. RIA established that there is no more need of the activities within the scope of the task of the external Consultant focused on institutional strengthening of administrations and support for absorption of OP funds for the road sector and because of that cancelled the procedure. The procedure for selection of Supplier for a system of counters for continuous registration traffic registration and portable scales for measuring of axle weight-in-motion - position G-01, was launched in 2010. Two bids were submitted, which were thoroughly reviewed in terms of fullness and compliance of bidding documents, and in terms of price acceptability, technical and technological capacity of each bidder. The bidding procedure was cancelled because of the too high price offered, failure to receive a ‘no objection’ from the Bank for signing of contract as per Clause 39.1 of the Bidding documents and none of the bidders was selected as successful. In view of the needs of RIA to procure a system of counters for continuous registration traffic registration and portable scales for measuring of axle weight-in-motion preparations for starting up of new procedures began by having the Technical



specification revised by the Consultant and experts of the Central Institute in view of expanding the scope of the procurement. The second procedure was launched in late 2012 and five companies submitted their bids. The procedure was terminated once again due to Project budget cuts. The budget of the Project is consistent with the established financing for State Investment Loans of the Ministry of Regional Development and respectively the Road Infrastructure Agency. The preparation and initiation of the procedure in December 2012 was based on the anticipated budget allocation for 2013. Since in respect to the date of signing a future contract with a contractor the budget parameters for State Investment Loans for 2013 have been reached, it is impossible to increase them and respectively to continue with the procedure. The third procedure for which no contract has been secured is (G-02/1 – Equipment for measuring the cohesion). The procedure was terminated because of lack of bids and inconsistency of the standards in the countries of origin of the manufacturing companies of the equipment in question with the European standards. The funds allocated to this position were distributed to other lines of the procurement plan. At the present moment RIA is still in need of such equipment and is exploring financing options. The Central Institute for Roads Technologies National and European Norm and Standards had a pressing need to buy software for traffic modeling (G-09/1.7.5) but due to the lack of time until the Project completion and disagreement with the Legal directorate at RIA in regard to the procedure for purchasing the software in question, the procedure did not take place. II.5.3 Component 3 – implementation

Component 3 includes the implementation of a coordinated and integrated package of efficient, multisectoral road safety interventions, based on the best international practices and enhancing the institutional capacity of the agencies, responsible for improving the performance of the road safety, both of which shall be realized through ensuring construction works, technical advisory services, training, equipment and conducting of studies (Attachment 3 – Table 5). The general framework of the Component could be divided into three interrelated stages: first – preparation and study of the output data, second – analysis and proposals on how to solve the problems, identified in the first stage and third – implementation of the solutions. At the beginning of 2010, within the scope of sub-component С-10, a working group of experts was established at the Road Infrastructure Agency, whose purpose was to select 25 road sections on the territory of the country, with high concentration of road accidents and to prepare the Terms of Reference and the call to bidders/invitation to tender, in order to select the Contractor for sub-components С-07 and С-08. The imposed budget restrictions that same year prevented the continuation of operations under Component 3 – Road Safety. After the restructuring of the loan in 2011, an update of the data on road accidents was updated, as well as the 25 road sections with a high concentration of road accidents. At the beginning of 2012, a bidding procedure was launched for the selection of Contractors for sub-component С-07 (local Consultant) and С-08 (international Consultant) and the



contracts with the Consultants, selected through the Methodology for Selecting of Consultants, on the basis of their qualifications, were signed in the beginning of November 2012. The tasks assigned to the local Consultant were as follows: conducting an analysis of the 25 road sections with a high concentration of road accidents and drafting proposals for measures for the treatment of the main factors, causing the accidents; review of the recommendations for amendments to the national norms having a direct relation to the road safety; developing guidelines for analysis of the road sections with a high concentration of road accidents, etc. In view of the specifics of the matter and the lack of traditions and understanding in Bulgaria of the leading trends in Europe, related to the road safety, the selected international Consultant played a major role and was extremely important for the successful completion of the Component. His objective was to support the local Consultant in his work on the 25 road sections with a high concentration of road accidents, to review and make proposals, related to the regulatory framework from the viewpoint of introducing the good practices from Europe, as well as to conduct a one-week course for an official from RIA’s Headquarters and the specialized units on the subject of “Analysis and Methods for the Treatment of Road Sections with a High Concentration of Road Accidents”.

III Environment All necessary permits have been obtained from the Ministry of Environment and Water, before the commencement of the construction works, and they are being stored together with the lot dossiers. The environmental supervision is included in the quarterly reports of the Consultant as a general impact of construction on the environment, without provision of an evaluation of each of the implemented lots. The availability of an expert within the Consultant’s team, with the respective qualification is of particular importance.

IV Indicators Achieved (see the Table - Indicators)

V Challenges / Lessons Learnt In the process of implementing the Project, the main challenges faced by the Implementing Agency of the Project can be summarized in the following groups: • Legislative: Finding the common ground when implementing the contractual terms for Construction for Building and Engineering Works Designed by the Employer, MDB Harmonized Edition March 2006 and the Bulgarian legislation (as some of the toughest moments are the commencement and end of construction and provided warranty deadlines);

• During the implementation: Compliance with the work schedule and cash flow.

• Financial: Uncertainties in determining the budget for the Project for each coming year due to the fact that RIA is a secondary budget distributor.



• The restructuring of RIA through the years has influenced the implementation of the Project.

VI Conclusions It is necessary to proceed to a better planning of the “design - execution” process, so that higher financial responsibility can be imposed on the construction supervision and designer. The term of the contracts for implementation to be from 7 to 10 years. More training of RIA personnel with regard to familiarizing with the rules for public procurement is necessary.

VII Support on Behalf of the Bank The World Bank team provided the necessary support for the operations under the Project. The Bank took all decisions on time and immediately provided the “No Objection” statements. In the process of implementation, the professional advice of the Bank team members made a considerable contribution to the successful completion of the Project and meeting the set outcomes.

VIII Appendices Appendix 1 Table 1. Road sections included in the "Project for the rehabilitation of road infrastructure"

Lot Section Road Site and Sections Length km

Lot 1 - North West

1 II-11 Vidin - Lom (km 0 +000 - km 10 +872) 10.87

2 II-11 Vidin - Lom (km 14 +010 - km 15 +990) 1.98

3 II-11 Vidin - Lom (km 31 +873 - km 41 +914) 10.04

4 II-11 Lom - Kovachitsa (km 49 +691 - km 57 +691) 8.00

5 II-11 Lom - Kovachitsa (km 68 +279 - km 71 +979) 3.70

6 II-11 Lom - Gigen (km102 +200 - km104 +750) 2.55

Lot 1 Total 37.14

Lot 2 North and North Central Region

7 II-15 Vratsa - Oriahovo (km 0 +000 - km 2 +895) 2.89

8 II-11 Gulyantsi - Milkovitsa (km 174 +864 - km 196 +147) 21.28



9 II-35 Pleven - Troyan - Kamare (km 46 +179-km 66 +500) 20.32

Lot 2 Total 44.49

Lot 3 North-East 10 II-23 Ruse - Silistra (km 94 +200 - km 116 +564) 22.36

11 II-51 Popovo - Dralfa (km 52 +149 - km 63 +790) 11.64

12 II-51 Dralfa - Chudomir (km 70 +700 - km 75 +000) 4.30

13 II-29 Varna - Dobrich limit (km 4 +000 - km 5 +400) 1.40

14 II-29 Varna - Dobrich ring road (km 7 +058 - km 10 +400) 3.34

15 II-29 Varna - Dobrich ring road (km 11 +500 - km 16 +200) 4.08

16 III-235 Glavinitsa - Zafirovo (km 25 +200 - 39 +117) 13.92

Lot 3 Total 61.04

Lot 4 South-West 17 I-6 Sofia - Pirdop (km133 +731 - km 189 +600) 55.87

Lot 4 Total 55.87

Lot 5 South Central region

18 I-6 Pirdop - Karlovo - Kalofer (km 242 +900 - km 264 +925) 22.03

19 III-8604

Plovdiv – Biala Cherkva - Kosovo (km 0 +000 - km 12 +000)

3.00

20 III-663 bypass Chirpan - Zetovo (km 0 +000 - km 4 +700) 4.70

21 III-807 Vurbitsa - Skobelevo (bypass Republic - Zetovo) (km 0 +000 - km 11 +800) over the Maritsa river

11.80

Lot 5 Total 41.53

Lot 6 North-East 22 I-7 Shumen - Preslav (km120 +859 - km 139 +000) 18.14

23 I-7 Preslav - Vurbitsa (km 146 +000 - km147 +700) 1.70

24 I-7 Preslav - Vurbitsa (km 165 +250 - km 176 +200) 10.95

Lot 6 Total 30.79

Lot 7 South-East 25 II-63 Pernik - Strezimirovtsi (km 43 +300 to km 52 +300) 9.00

26 III-6301

Filipovtsi - Glogovitsa-Tran (km 0 +000 - km 12 +000) 12.00

27 III-813 Dragoman-Vrabcha (km 29 +000 - km 56 +700) 27.70

Lot 7 Total 48.70

Lot 8 South-West 28 III-198 G. Delchev - Pirin village (km 0 +000 - km 33 +590) 33.60

29 III-198 Petrich - border – FYR Macedonia (km 60 +200 - km 91 +603)

31.40



Lot 8 Total 65.00

Lot 9 South-East 30 I-9 Burgas - Marinka - Zvezdets - Malko Tarnovo - border - Turkey (km 247 +135 - km 309 +135)

65.00

Lot 9 Total 65.00

OVERALL LENGTH PROVIDED FOR REHABILITATION ROADS (KM) 449.56

Table 2a. Road sections included in the "Project for the rehabilitation of road infrastructure"


Lot 1 - North West 1 II-11 Vidin - Lom (0 +000 - km 10 +924) 10.924

2 II-11 Vidin - Lom (km 14 +010 - km 16 +115) 2.105

3 II-11 Vidin - Lom (km 31 +873 - km 43 +500) 11.627

4 II-11 Lom - Kovatchevitsa (km 49 +691 - km 57 +747) 8.056 5 II-11 Lom - Kovatchevitsa (km 68 +279 - km 70 +223) 1.944

6 II-11 Lom - Gigen (km 102 +200 - km 104 +175) 1.975

Lot 1 Total 36.63

Lot 2 North and North Central Region

7 II-15 Vratsa - Oriahovo (0 +000 - km 3 +028) 3.028

8 II-11 Gigen - Gulyantsi - Milkovitsa (km 174 +867 - km 196 +144)

21.277

9 II-35 Pleven - Troyan - Karnare (km 46 +105, km 66 +410) 20.305

Lot 2 Total 44.610

Lot 3 North-East 11 II-23 Russe - Silistra (km 94 +200 - km 116 +445) 22.245

12 II-51 Popovo - Dralfa (km 52 +420 - km 63 +745) 11.325

13 II-51 Dralfa - Chudomir (km 70 +700 - km 75 +000) 4.300

14 II-29 Varna - Dobrich (km 7 +057 - km 10 +419) 3.362 15 II-29 Varna - Dobrich (km 16 +124 - km 20 +470) 4.346

Lot 3 Total 45.578

Lot 4 South-West 17 I-6 Sofia - Pirdop (km 133 +895 - km 189 +292) 55.397

Lot 4 Total 55.397

Lot 8 South-West 18 III-198 G. Delchev - Pirin (km 2 +634 - km 33 +542) 30.908 19 III-198 Petrich - border crossing with FYR Macedonia (km 60

+200 - km 92 +185) 31.985

Lot 8 Total 62.893

Lot 9 South-East 21 I-9 Burgas - Marinka - Zvezdets – Malko Tarnovo (km 247 +135 - km 308 +976)

61.841

Lot 9 Total 61.841

OVERALL LENGTH PROVIDED FOR REHABILITATION ROADS (KM) 306.950



Table 2b. - Additional areas covered through change orders


Lot 2 1 II-11 Crossing through Gigen (km 172 +164 - km 174 +867) 2.700

Lot 3 2 II-49 and II-51

Roundabout at km 11 +888 of II-49 0.530

Table 3. Selected contractor, price at the beginning and the end of construction, period of performance.

Lot № Selected contractor

Estimated contract price

Accepted contract price

Final price Period of performance under the

contract agreement

(Days)

Period of performanc

e after an additional agreement

(Days)

Lot 1 (W-01)

Roads Association Vidin

14,551,375.20

13,993,496.00

14,095,954.43

546 954

Lot 2 (W-02)

Trace Association Pleven

28,046,602.20

20,253,431.74

21,113,794.35

546 945

Lot 3 (W-03)

Roads Association Razgrad

35,909,038.80

30,784,516.58

22,964,071.42

730 910

Lot 4 (W-04)

PAM Association - 2009

45,883,771.80

24,809,421.10

26,460,544.06

730 999

Lot 8 (W-08)

Consortia Nevrokop

33,562,042.80

25,229,697.46

29,898,781.41

730 937

Lot 9 (W-09)

Highways - Black Sea Corp.

48,817,516.80

27,815,805.73

33,959,369.22

730 917

TOTAL: 206,770,347.60 142,886,368.61 148,492,514.89 4012 5662

Appendix 2 Table 4a. Component 2 - Institutional Development

type № Description of contract Selected supplier / consultant

value note

G-01/1 Permanent automatic devices for counting and classifying traffic

- - the procedure is terminated

G-01/2 Mobile system for the study of movement in weight

- - the procedure is terminated

G-02/1 Equipment for the measurement of adhesion

- - had not submitted bids

G-02/2 Equipment for measuring the flatness

Dynatest Denmark A/ S € 117,714.00



G-02/3 Deflektograf to measure the bearing capacity of the floor

VECTRA € 393,400.00

G-06 Illuminate the road markings and road signs

MARVEL Ltd € 14,753.00

G-07/1 Mobile laboratory for testing of materials

Patpribor Ltd. € 256,706.04

G-08/1 Automated dynamic tests SIGMATICS Ltd. € 35,520.25

G-08/2 Equipment for testing the integrity of pilots

Patpribor Ltd. £ 10,440.00

G-08/3 Software to calculate the bearing capacity of bridges

KANISCO Ltd. € 16,150.00

C-02 Improve the management of road maintenance

Finroad Ltd in association with Ramboll Denmark A / S and Roadscanners Ltd

€ 588,290.00

G-09/1 HDM-4 software program TRL Limited $ 6,037.50

G-09/2 Delivery of digital cameras 4 pcs.

VIP Treiding € 1,000.00

G-09/3 GIS ESRI Bulgaria € 12,680.00

G-09/4 Specialized software ROAD DOCTOR

Roadscanners Ltd € 51,750.00

G-10/1 Computer equipment and networks

Kontrax Ltd. € 13,703.22

G-10/2 System for video cameras and inventory of road

Roadscanners Ltd € 32,080.00

G-11 Atomobil type "Van" for the mobile laboratory ipitvane material

Nissan Sofia Ltd € 16,085.00

C-11 Consultant on main roads Virgaudas Puodziukas - Lithuania

€ 308,470.00

C-12 Consultant to assist the management of projects under OP "Transport" and "Regional Development"

- - the procedure is not performed

C-05 Training RIA TSIPTNENS, SDA

Trainings held in Turin, Italy, and Rab. Visit to Vilnius, Lithuania

€ 40,659.61 payment of invoices

C-06/1 Audit 1 of the project in 2008. Grant Thornton € 11,720.00

C-06/2 2 audit of the project in 2009, 2010. and 2011.

AFA Ltd. € 32,615.00

C-06/3 3 Audit of the project in 2012. and 2013.

AFA Ltd. € 21,740.00



Table 4b. Trainings according to the project


trained experts

man hours

totaling note

С-01 Training to implement the terms of the FIDIC

Mott Macdonald

26 134

С-05 Project Cycle Management

Turin, Italy 4 320 95,427.94 BGN

Management of projects financed by IBRD

4 160

Management of projects financed by IBRD

7 280

Working visit to Lithuania

COWI 10 400

С-08 Analysis and methods for treatment of portions having a concentration of crashes

Royal Haskoning DHV

37 1480 4,889.58 BGN

excluding travel expences, room and board for the participants. Those are covered by RIA budget

Appendix 3 Table 5. Component 3 - Road Safety


value note

C-07 Road Safety Technical Assistance - Research, analysis and preparation of preliminary engineering (conceptual designs) to improve road safety in dangerous Sites.

JV "Road Safety" 119,410.00 €

C-08 Road Safety - Technical Assistance - Construction of improved institutional capacity in the systematic identification and improvement of road safety in hazardous locations

Wim van der Wijk 54,500.00 €

C-10 Road Safety - Research RIA with the assistance of TSIPTNENS

- studies were conducted by experts from RIA

W-10 Road safety - works and goods - - the procedure is not performed


Annex 8 Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders N/A


Annex 9 List of Supporting Documents Project Documentation • Project Concept Note, Bulgaria: RIRP. June 29, 2006. • Project Appraisal Document on a proposed Loan in the Amount of EUR 90.0 million

(US$ 122.5 million) to Bulgaria for RIRP, May 31, 2007. • Restructuring Paper on a Proposed Project Restructuring of RIRP and IBRD-48650,

March 31, 2011. • Loan Agreement (RIRP) between Bulgaria and International Bank for Reconstruction

and Development, Dated September 19, 2007/ • Loan Agreement Amendment (RIRP) between Bulgaria and International Bank for

Reconstruction and Development, Dated May 17, 2011/ • Minutes of Concept Review for Bulgaria: RIRP, June 29, 2006. • Results of the Quality Enhancement Review for Bulgaria: RIRP, October 19, 2006. • Minutes of Decision Package Review Meeting for Bulgaria: RIRP, November 16, 2006. • Negotiations Package for Bulgaria: RIRP, May 29, 2007. • Bulgaria – Road Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project : Environmental Management

Plan, December 01, 2006 Mission Aide-Memoires and Implementation Status Reports • Bulgaria Road Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project: P099894 - Implementation Status

Results Report 1, November 13, 2007. • Bulgaria Road Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project: P099894 - Implementation Status

Results Report 2, March 06, 2008. • Bulgaria Road Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project: P099894 - Implementation Status

Results Report 3, May 05, 2008. • Bulgaria Road Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project: P099894 - Implementation Status


Results Report 5, March 23, 2009. • Bulgaria Road Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project: P099894 - Implementation Status

Results Report 6, August 05, 2009. • Bulgaria Road Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project: P099894 - Implementation Status

Results Report 7, December 08, 2009. • Bulgaria Road Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project: P099894 - Implementation Status

Results Report 8, April 14, 2010. • Bulgaria Road Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project: P099894 - Implementation Status


Results Report 10, June 29, 2011. • Bulgaria Road Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project: P099894 - Implementation Status

Results Report 11, October 30, 2011. • Bulgaria Road Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project: P099894 - Implementation Status

Results Report 12, October 22, 2012.


• Bulgaria Road Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project: P099894 - Implementation Status Results Report 13, December 25, 2012.

• Bulgaria Road Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project: P099894 - Implementation Status Results Report 14, June 22, 2013.

Other documents and reports • Country Partnership Strategy for Bulgaria for the period FY11-13, April 20, 2011 • Bulgaria Public Finance Policy Review. World Bank Report No. 33992-BG. 2006. • Review of 25 Hazardous locations: Advice to improve black spot analysis and road

safety treatments, May 02, 2013 • Quarterly Report 1 – RIRP-C11 – Highway Advisor • Quarterly Report 2 – RIRP-C11 – Highway Advisor • Quarterly Report 3 – RIRP-C11 – Highway Advisor • Quarterly Report 4 – RIRP-C11 – Highway Advisor • Quarterly Report 5 – RIRP-C11 – Highway Advisor • Quarterly Report 6 – RIRP-C11 – Highway Advisor • Mott McDonald: Draft Final Progress Report for Bulgaria Road Infrastructure

Rehabilitation Project, August, 2013.

Kula

Lom

Koshava

Berkovitsa

Elin PelinKarlovo

KhisaryaPanagjurishte

BobovDol

Kostinbrod Novi Iskar

Asenovgrad

Skutare

Dospat

Levski PopovoKaspichan

Elena

Nova Zagora

Dimitrovgrad MalkoTarnovo

Michurin

Primorsko

PomorieSarafovo

Tutrakan

Alfatar

Kamenets

IvaylovgradRudozem

Belogradchik

Kozloduy Oryahovo

ByalaSlatina

Knezha

Cherven Bryag

Mezdra

DolniDubnik

DolnaMitropoliya

Nikopol

BeleneSvishtov

Byala

Botevgrad

Buhovo

Radomir

Samokov

Dupnitsa

Zlatitsa

Pirdop

Klisura

Velingrad

Razlog

Sandanski

Petrich

GotseDelchev

Batak

Peshtera

Chirpan MihailovoOrizovo

Madan

Zlatograd

Momchilgrad

Svilengrad

Kharmanli

Elkhovo

KarnobatKalofer

Kazanluk

Troyan

Sevlievo

Dryanovo

Lyaskovets

Gorna OryakhovitsaOmurtag

veliki Preslav

Dulovo

Kaolinovo

Novi Pazar

RekaDevnya

ProvadiyaBeloslav

BalchikKavarna

Shabla

Nesebur

Sozopol

AkhtopolAleko Konstantinov

CheshnegirovoKrumovo

Uzundzhovo

Lyubenovo

Tenevo

Bezmer

Studen Kladenets

Malevo

Rezovo

ChernomoretsRavnets

Kameno

Aytos

Staro Oryakhovo

TyulenovoSokolovo

Kardam

Podkova

Graf Ignatievo

DubovoTulovo

Zlataritsa

Zlatna Panega

Gaber

Kalotina

Beli Izvor

Chiren

RilskiManastir

Dobrinishta

Gyushevo

Dolni Rakovets

Bojurishte

Gabrovnitsa

Gigen

General TodorovKulata

Vindin

Montana

Pernik

Kyustendil

Plovdiv

Khaskovo

Blagoevgrad

Pazardzhik

KurdjaliSmolyan

Stara Zagora

Varna

Burgas

Shumen

Yambol

Sliven

Razgrad

Vratsa

Pleven

VelikoTurnovo

Dobrich

Silistra

Ruse

Gabrovo

Lovech

Turgovishte

SOFIA

NW NCNE

SE

SC

SW

R O M A N I A

T U R K E Y

G R E E C E

F Y RM A C E D O N I A

S E R B I A

H E MUS

M

OTORWAY

HEMUS MOTOR WAY

TR AKIA MOTORWAY

TRAKIA

MOTORWAY

Isperih

Todorevo

Kula

Lom

Koshava

Berkovitsa

Elin PelinKarlovo

KhisaryaPanagjurishte

BobovDol

Kostinbrod Novi Iskar

Asenovgrad

Skutare

Dospat

Levski PopovoKaspichan

Elena

Nova Zagora

Dimitrovgrad MalkoTarnovo

Michurin

Primorsko

PomorieSarafovo

Tutrakan

Alfatar

Kamenets

IvaylovgradRudozem

Belogradchik

Kozloduy Oryahovo

ByalaSlatina

Knezha

Cherven Bryag

Mezdra

DolniDubnik

DolnaMitropoliya

Nikopol

BeleneSvishtov

Byala

Botevgrad

Buhovo

Radomir

Samokov

Dupnitsa

Zlatitsa

Pirdop

Klisura

Velingrad

Razlog

Sandanski

Petrich

GotseDelchev

Batak

Peshtera

Chirpan MihailovoOrizovo

Madan

Zlatograd

Momchilgrad

Svilengrad

Kharmanli

Elkhovo

KarnobatKalofer

Kazanluk

Troyan

Sevlievo

Dryanovo

Lyaskovets

Gorna OryakhovitsaOmurtag

Veliki Preslav

Dulovo

Kaolinovo

Novi Pazar

RekaDevnya

ProvadiyaBeloslav

BalchikKavarna

Shabla

Nesebur

Sozopol

AkhtopolAleko Konstantinov

CheshnegirovoKrumovo

Uzundzhovo

Lyubenovo

Tenevo

Bezmer

Studen Kladenets

Malevo

Rezovo

ChernomoretsRavnets

Kameno

Aytos

Staro Oryakhovo

TyulenovoSokolovo

KardamIsperih

Podkova

Graf Ignatievo

DubovoTulovo

Zlataritsa

Zlatna Panega

Gaber

Dragoman

Kalotina

Beli Izvor

Chiren

RilskiManastir

Dobrinishta

Gyushevo

Dolni Rakovets

Bojurishte

Gabrovnitsa

Gigen

General TodorovKulata

Todorevo

Vindin

Montana

Pernik

Kyustendil

Plovdiv

Khaskovo

Blagoevgrad

Pazardzhik

KurdjaliSmolyan

Stara Zagora

Varna

Burgas

Shumen

Yambol

Sliven

Razgrad

Vratsa

Pleven

VelikoTurnovo

Dobrich

Silistra

Ruse

Gabrovo

Lovech

Turgovishte

SOFIA

NW NCNE

SE

SC

SW

R O M A N I A

T U R K E Y

G R E E C E

F Y RM A C E D O N I A

S E R B I A

H E MUS

M

OTORWAY

HEMUS MOTOR WAY

TR AKIA MOTORWAY

TRAKIA

MOTORWAY

To Edirne

To Edirne

To Komotini

To DramaTo Serral

To Strumica

To KrivaPalanka

To Zajecar

To Bucharest

To Constanta

Iskar R.

Jantra Ros

ica R.

Tundja

Maritza R.

Mesta R.

Struma R.

Marits

a R.

Arda R.

Osâm

Vit R

.

R.

R.

R.

B l a c k

S e a

A e g e a n S e a

Danube

DanubeR. R.

23° 24° 25° 26° 27° 28°22° 29°

44°

43°

42°

41°

23°

24° 25° 26°

27°

41°

28°

42°

43°

44°

29°

22°

DanubeBlackSea

AdriaticSea

SOFIA

FYRMACEDONIAALBANIA

G R E E C ET U R K E Y

MOLDOVA

R O M A N I A

H U N G A R Y

CROATIA

BOSNIA ANDHERZEGOVINA S E R B I A

MONTE-NEGRO

KOSOVO

ITALY

BULGARIA

This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.

GSDPMMap Design Unit

BULGARIA

R O A D I N F R A S T R U C T U R ER E H A B I L I TAT I O N P R O J E C T

PROJECT ROAD SECTIONS TO BE REHABILITATED

MOTORWAYS

CLASS 1 ROADS

CLASS 2 ROADS

CLASS 3 ROADS

NATIONAL CAPITAL

MAIN CITIES AND TOWNS

PORTS

REGION BOUNDARIES (Level-2 NUTS subdivisions)

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES

KILOMETERS

0 20 40 60 80 100

OCTOBER 2013

IBRD 35097R