Eastern Indonesia National Road Improvement Project ...kiat.or.id/resx/upload/Example_of_Monitoring_Audit_Repo.pdf · Doc. ID: B015 – ESS-01 Audit Monitoring Report 1 SECTION A

In Association with

Funded by the Australian Government

Eastern Indonesia National Road Improvement Project

Technical and Financial Audit Consultant

AUDIT MONITORING REPORT

Package ESS-01

Sengkang-Impaimpa-Tarumpakkae

Report No. B015

October 2011

Technical and Financial Audit Consultant (TFAC)

Doc. ID: B015 – ESS-01 Audit Monitoring Report i

Foreword

This report describes the tasks performed by Ltd undertaken through the EINRIP Technical and Financial Audit Consultant Project in support of the Australian Indonesia Partnership for Reconstruction and Development. Project implementation and management, as described in this report, is in accordance with the Scope of Services agreed in the contract between Cardno Emerging Markets (Australia) and the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID). The Scope of Services was defined by the requests of the Client, time and budgetary constraints imposed by the client, and by availability of access to the Project site.

This report has been prepared on behalf of, and for exclusive use of, the Client as required for on-going planning and implementation needs, and follows consultation between the Project team and the Agencies of the Government of Indonesia (GoI) involved in EINRIP. Reporting is in accordance with the requirements of the Head Contract for these services. The report is subject to, and issued in connection with, the provisions of the agreement between Cardno Emerging Markets (Australia) and the client. Cardno Emerging Markets (Australia) accepts no responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party.

The content of this report, and the recommendations made, may be used as required in accordance with Project needs.

Audit limitations

Not all matters defined by the Scope of Services could be addressed in the time available for field inspections. HIV prevention requirements of the contract were not examined.


Doc. ID: B015 – ESS-01 Audit Monitoring Report ii

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AIP Australian Indonesia Partnership for Reconstruction and Development

AF Audit Form

AusAID Australian Agency for International Development

CWC Civil Works Contractor

EINRIP Eastern Indonesia National Road Improvement Project

EMU EINRIP Monitoring Unit

GoI Government of Indonesia

GCC General Conditions of Contract

GS General Specification

PMSC Project Management Support Consultant

PMU Project Monitoring Unit

QAP Quality Assurance Plan (managed by RSC)

QCP Quality Control Plan (managed by CWC)

RSC Regional Supervision Consultant

TFAC Technical and Financial Audit Consultant

TOR Terms of Reference (EINRIP-TFAC)


Doc. ID: B015 – ESS-01 Audit Monitoring Report iii

Report Register

Report No. Name of Report

A001 Inception Report

A002 General Audit Plan

B001 Final Audit Report – Package EBL-01, Tohpati – Kusamba

B002 Final Audit Report – Package ENB-01AB, Sumbawa Besar Bypass

B003 Final Audit Report – Package EKB-01, Pontianak - Tayan

B004 Final Audit Report – Package ESR-01, Tinanggea – Kasipute

B005 Final Audit Report – Package ESS-02, Bantaeng - Bulukumba

B006 Final Audit Report – Package EBL- 02, Tohpati –Kusamba, Stage 2

B007 Final Audit Report – Package ENB-01C, Pal IV – KM 70, Sumbawa

B008 Final Audit Report – Package ENB-02, KM 70 – Cabdin Dompu, Sumbawa

B009 Final Audit Report – Package ENB-03, Cabdin Dompu - Banggo, Sumbawa

B010 Final Audit Report – Package ESR-02, Bambaea – Sp. Kasipute

B011 Final Audit Report – Package ESS-01, Sengkang-Impaimpa-Tarumpakkae

B012 Final Audit Report – Package ESH-01, Lakuan - Buol

B013 Second Audit Report – Package ESS-02, Bantaeng - Bulukumba

B014 Second Audit Report – Package EKB-01, Pontianak - Tayan

B015 Final Audit Monitoring Report – Package ESS-01, Sengkang – Impaimpa –

Tarumapakkae

S001 Special Audit Report – Wearing Course Asphalt (AC WC 1) on Package EBL 01, Tohpati – Kusamba, Stage 1

S002 Special Financial Audit report – RSC Personnel Remuneration Audit


Doc. ID: B015 – ESS-01 Audit Monitoring Report iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION A OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................... 1

SECTION B BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 2

B.1 EINRIP Projects ...................................................................................................... 2

B.2 Project Objectives ................................................................................................... 2

B.3 The Package ........................................................................................................... 2

B.4 Technical and Financial Audit ................................................................................. 2

SECTION C TECHNICAL FOLLOW-UP MONITORING ....................................................... 4

C.1 Objective of Follow-Up Monitoring .......................................................................... 4

C.2 Follow-Up Monitoring Team .................................................................................... 4

SECTION D FINDINGS OF MONITORING EXERCISE ........................................................ 5

SECTION E SUPPORT and ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS ........................................... 16

E.1 Traffic Management .............................................................................................. 16

E.2 Survey and Level Control ...................................................................................... 16

E.3 Work Scheduling ................................................................................................... 17

E.4 Environmental Monitoring ..................................................................................... 17

E.5 Pipe Drain Construction ........................................................................................ 18

E.6 Cross Drain at Station 5+229 ................................................................................ 19

E.7 U-Ditch Top Levels Station 2+900......................................................................... 19

E.8 Sub-grade Preparation .......................................................................................... 20

E.9 Base Class A Preparation ..................................................................................... 20

E.10 Asphalt Binder Course/Wearing Course ............................................................ 20

E.11 Drainage System Not Functioning ..................................................................... 21

E.12 Poor Setting out of Retaining Walls ................................................................... 22

E.13 Pavement Deflections........................................................................................ 22

E.14 Typical Incorrect Pavement Cross-falls ............................................................. 23

SECTION F SUMMARY FINDINGS PPK/TFAC ................................................................. 24

SECTION G CONSEQUENCES/RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 37


Doc. ID: B015 – ESS-01 Audit Monitoring Report v

Table of Figures

Figure 1 Typical unprotected pavement widening situation ................................................. 16

Figure 2 Examples of new Temporary Bench Marks recently installed by the Contractor ... 16

Figure 3 Dumping Practice in April 2011 ............................................................................ 17

Figure 4 Dumping Practice October 2011 .......................................................................... 17

Figure 5 Photographs taken in pipe drain between station 3+000 and station 4+000 on 6th October 2011 .................................................................................................. 18

Figure 6 Uncovered Pipe Drain at Station 0+200 ............................................................... 18

Figure 7 Culvert Extension required at Station 5+229 ........................................................ 19

Figure 8 Kerb and Side Ditch levels ................................................................................... 19

Figure 9 Sub-grade Cross-fall at station 18+775 ................................................................ 20

Figure 10 Baby Power Broom on site ESS-01 .................................................................... 20

Figure 11 One of several blocked Drainage System Outlets .............................................. 21

Figure 12 Incorrect Construction at station 0+200 ............................................................... 21

Figure 13 Incomplete Drainage System ............................................................................. 22

Figure 14 Retaining Wall at Station 21+200 ....................................................................... 22

Figure 15 Correction Example Station 14+250 ................................................................... 23


Doc. ID: B015 – ESS-01 Audit Monitoring Report

SECTION A – OVERVIEW

Eastern Indonesia National Road Improvement Project (EINRIP)


Doc. ID: B015 – ESS-01 Audit Monitoring Report 1

SECTION A OVERVIEW

This report demonstrates that there has been a very poor response both by the RSC and by the contractor to complete corrective actions agreed at the Audit Closing Meeting and described by Audit Report B011. This situation exists despite a report from the RSC claiming substantial compliance with Audit Report B011 requirements.

There is a strong case for the Engineer, with the support of the Employer (DGH) to suspend all further works for this project until:

a) all corrective actions required by the initial audit have been completed,

b) the contractor has established accurate control point coordinates

c) other defects in works completed subsequent to the initial audit have been

comprehensively corrected

d) satisfactory Methods of Work are agreed for remaining works (for example: control of

pavement super-elevation)

e) comprehensive action has been taken to improve RSC supervision of the work



SECTION B – BACKGROUND




SECTION B BACKGROUND

B.1 EINRIP Projects

The Australian Indonesia Partnership for Reconstruction and Development (AIPRD) is administered by the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) in partnership with the Government of Indonesia (GOI). As part of AIPRD, both governments have committed loan funds (A$300 million) to the Eastern Indonesia National Road Improvement Project (EINRIP). EINRIP supports a program of National Road and bridge improvement projects, with major focus on roads upgraded to National roads from previously Provincial or non-status roads and limited road capacity expansions. Approximately 4,300 km of roads are affected, of which around 500 kilometres and 14 steel truss bridges are covered by this project (packages ESU-01, ESH-01 and ESR-02).

EINRIP includes 24 road and bridge improvement contracts with an average value of A$10 million, located in nine provinces in Indonesia; North Sulawesi, Central Sulawesi, South-East Sulawesi and South Sulawesi, West Kalimantan, South Kalimantan, Bali, NTB and NTT. The Project supports a GoI program to improve selected national road links and to ensure the national road network provides an acceptable level of service and accessibility, capable of supporting local and regional economic development. The EINRIP program reflects an up-scaled approach to delivering quality outcomes and to over-sight regulation and checks and balances. AusAID and the GoI have developed a suite of contracts and components to ensure that specified standards are sustained and that both governments receive value for money.

B.2 Project Objectives

The project development objective is “To support regional economic and social development in Eastern Indonesia by improving the condition of the national road network.”

The main objective is to improve road links to an acceptable standard, suitable to their new status, to help ensure that the National road network provides acceptable standards of service and accessibility, and is capable of supporting local and regional economic development.

B.3 The Package

Contract Package ESS-01 is located in South Sulawesi starting local coordinates E-168467.044; N-9543737.498 and ending at E-185781.38: N-9555200.36. The Contractor implementing the project is . The Quality Assurance supervision is being carried out by the Regional Supervision Consultant (RSC) in joint venture with and as the Engineer. The project is a road betterment exercise incorporating 24.20km of road upgrading, rehabilitation of 7 bridges, new, extension and replacement culvert works and drainage improvements.

B.4 Technical and Financial Audit

A requirement of the loan agreement for the EINRIP Project is that the individual projects be independently audited. AusAID engaged the services of

Ltd as the Technical and Financial Audit Consultants (TFAC) tasked with



carrying out technical and financial audits during the implementation of civil works to assess compliance with the contract document requirements and that the required quality is achieved.

A Technical and Financial Audit was carried out on this project between 19th April and 24th April 2011 and several activities, processes or procedures that did not conform to the requirements of the contract documents were noted. The non-conformities noted and discussed with all parties at the audit closing meeting on 25th April 2011 are listed below.

1) Insufficient Traffic Management

2) Quality Control Plan and method Statements not fully utilised

3) RSC Quality Assurance Plan on site not current

4) Holding Points

5) Survey and Level Control

6) Work Scheduling

7) Vehicle Overloading

8) Environmental Issues

9) Road Width too narrow

10) Pipe Drain construction

11) U-Ditch not correct

12) Retaining Wall Filters not installed

13) U-Ditch construction quality

14) U-Ditch Covers on curves

15) Cross-Drain at Station 5+229

16) Grade Preparation shape and compaction

17) Earthworks and Pavement compaction for widening

18) Aggregate Base A levelling and compaction

19) Prime Coat Seal construction

20) Power Broom

21) Incomplete Asphalt Binder and Asphalt Base Job Mixes

22) Asphalt Finisher Screed Vibration

23) Preparatory Work before Asphalt Construction

24) Asphalt Binder Cross-Falls incorrect

25) Storage for Batu Bara (coal)

26) Asphalt Binder AC-BC independent test results

27) Asphalt Binder AC-BC independent testing

28) Selected Embankment Quantities for sub-grade improvement



SECTION C – TECHNICAL FOLLOW-UP MONITORING




SECTION C TECHNICAL FOLLOW-UP MONITORING

C.1 Objective of Follow-Up Monitoring

The objective of the audit follow-up monitoring is to observe the actions taken by the Contractor, with assistance from the RSC as required, to correct the non-conformities noted by the Technical and Financial Audit Consultant (TFAC) during the audit carried out between 19th and 24th April 2011.

C.2 Follow-Up Monitoring Team

The follow up monitoring has been carried out jointly by Technical and Financial Audit Team members on 6th and 7th October 2011.

The Monitoring Team comprised

TFAC, Co-Team Leader

TFAC, Sr. Materials/Pavement Engineer

TFAC, Engineer



SECTION D – FINDINGS OF MONITORING EXERCISE




SECTION D FINDINGS OF MONITORING EXERCISE

Audit Ref

Audit Observed Non- Conformity April 2011

Comments on Status Observed at April 2011

Degree of Compliance with Audit Findings October 2011

AF-01 Traffic Management

Specific Issue:- There was insufficient traffic control and traffic management on the project site

The Engineer must enforce the requirements of the contract documents with respect to traffic, works force and public safety.

Should the situation not improve adequately then the Engineer has the power to suspend the works pending better traffic control and sign posting.

If the work is not done then payment for traffic management should be withheld (Pay Item 1.8)

There were three locations where work was in progress on the site. Only one of these locations had traffic control operating

There are no traffic speed signs anywhere on the site.

Estimated compliance with the traffic control requirement approximately 10%

AF-02 Quality Control Plan and Method Statements

Specific Issue:- The Contractor has prepared a Quality Control Plan and basic Method Statements for most site activities but these are not being fully utilised on the construction site.

The Engineer must review the Contractor‟s Quality Control Plan and method statements, approve these if adequate, and ensure the Contractor adheres to the requirements of the approved Quality Control Plan

Difficult to estimate the percent compliance as:

Key sections of drainage system not operating

Sub-grade cross-falls are incorrect

Base A cross-falls are incorrect

Asphalt layer cross-falls are incorrect

Retaining walls do not have filter layers

Pipe drains incorrect construction

Etc.

Estimated compliance with the requirements of the Quality Control Plan and Method Statements approximately 25% to 30%



Audit Ref




AF-03 RSC Quality Assurance Plan on site not current

Specific Issue:- An up-to-date hard copy of the RSC‟s Quality Assurance Plan is not available on site. The version the RSC has on site is the 2010 workshop copy which is mainly power point presentations (there is a soft copy of the 2009 version in English on the RSC site computer). RSC Check Lists are available on site but these are not being fully implemented. The requirements of Holding Points are not applied.

The Engineer must ensure the RSC site staff are supplied with an up-to-date copy of their Quality assurance plan in the Indonesian language

The Engineer must ensure that the requirements of this plan are fully implemented on site.

RSC Field Staff must implement and develop the checklists in accordance with his/her assignment and responsibilities. Holding points should be supervised and checked properly.

Approval of the Requests-For-Work should be supported by proper implementation and completion of check lists.

The latest version of the Quality Assurance Plan (September 2010) is on site in both hard copy and soft copy.

Requests for Work are being presented and approved

Non-conformance reports are prepared and a register kept for these but work proceeds past these holding points without correction.

For example:

There has been no non-conformance registered for

Drainage – some sections of the newly paved road still cannot drain

Subgrade preparation – incorrect cross-falls, shape

Base Class A – incorrect cross-falls, shape

AC Binder Course - incorrect cross-falls, shape

AC Wearing Course - incorrect cross-falls, shape

Retaining Wall Filters

Etc.

Estimated 100% of the requirement to have the latest version of the QAP on site but less than 30% compliance with the requirements of the QAP.

AF-04 Holding Points

Specific Issue:- The requirement of the Holding Points are not being enforced by either the RSC or the Contractor .

The requirements of Holding Points must be enforced. Holding Points are the basic tools for controlling the quality of the works.

The non-conformities noted at the April Audit, and those which are still not being attended to as the project progresses and observed during the October TFAC Monitoring, highlight the lack of



Audit Ref




implementation of the requirements of Holding Points

It is estimated there is less than 20% compliance with the requirements of Holding Points

AF-05 Survey and Level Control

Specific Issue:- The Auditor found the survey and level control on the project to be completely inadequate.

There are not enough survey control points located on the project to adequately control the horizontal and vertical alignment of the road or the levels on the structures.

The Contractor to install and RSC to check that a complete and adequate survey control together with regular offset level check points is established before any further drainage is installed or construction proceeds past sub-grade preparation

The Contractor has installed Temporary Bench Marks generally at 1.0km intervals and in some places at 0.5km intervals. It is understood these TBMs have been installed using a hand-held GPS unit. Intersection Points (IP) have been re-established using Total Station equipment. The use of hand-held GPs units is of debatable accuracy. The TFAC hand held GPS gave an accuracy of 4.00m at one location checked.

Estimated 100% compliance with requirement for a survey control but doubts about the accuracy of the TBMs

AF-06 Work Scheduling

Specific Issue:- The scheduling of some work components of the Contractors operations need to be more carefully assessed and applied. Some components of work are not programmed to the best advantage.

The Contractor should attempt to complete opened up works as soon as possible and program future works to follow with the next stage of the work as soon as possible. In particular he needs to accelerate the completion of the following activities before opening up more areas of work:

complete drainage including discharge paths to the point where it is functional

backfill and filter material for retaining walls

backfill and granular layers in widening trenches station 0+000 to station 4 +

Work scheduling has improved in some areas. However, there are many locations where work should have been completed by this time. For example:

Correction of the non-compliant side ditch works between station 0+000 and station 4+200.

Correction of the non-compliant pipe drains between station 3+000 and station 4+200

Installation of the filters behind retaining walls

Construction of outlet channels station 0+000 to station 3+000

Etc.



Audit Ref




Construction of base A in pavement widening excavations

repositioning of power poles

casting of curbs

placing of subsoil drains

placing of curbs km 0 – 4

completion of pipe drains

Estimated about 50% compliance with the requirements for works scheduling

AF-07 Vehicle Overloading

Specific Issue:- The Contractor is using and fully loading, trucks with body capacities that produce axle loads much higher than allowable.

Contract Document conditions must be enforced by the Engineer

All truck loads to be limited to 10 tonnes per rear axle and 6 tonnes per front axle

The Contractor is still overloading vehicles using large truck bodies and hauling 45-50km from Barru to the site.

The Contractor advised that trucks hauling for on site construction are carrying 12 tonnes on the single dual rear axle.

It is estimated there has been little if any compliance with the requirement to legally load trucks hauling on public roads

AF-08 Environmental

Specific Issue:- The Contractors operations are causing environmental damage

The Contractor is depositing excavation waste materials over the sides of the road into gullies and onto private property. This is creating pollution and effecting private land and waterways.

Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the land owners and/or the local authority then the Contractor must clean up this material as soon as possible.

RSC Environmental Specialist and SSE must assess the overall situation and report to the Engineer with recommendations.

The materials dumped onto private property have not been cleaned up and there is no written approval from land owners for this practice which is continuing

There has been no compliance with this requirement

AF-09 Road Width too Narrow

Specific Issue:- Road width (from inner side to inner side of U-ditch walls) was found to be less than as required by the Drawings

At Station 2+300 and adjacent locations, the

The Contractor and the Engineer should ensure that all future works are properly set out so this situation is not repeated.

This narrow road situation has not been corrected. It is unlikely this will be implemented as does not effect the performance of the road. and to correct it would mean completely removing and replacing



Audit Ref




width between the lined ditches on each side of the road was measured and found to be

only 8,20-8,40m (this is less than 8,50m defined in the Drawings).

The Engineer should apply a payment reduction for the reduced quantity of pavement material.

the at least the ditch on one side of the road

No compliance with the requirement

AF-10 Pipe Drain Construction

Specific Issue:- The construction of the pipe drain designed for sections of the road commencing from station 0+000 was found by the Auditor to be very poor

The contractor is currently installing pipe drains from station 3+000 forward. Both the vertical and horizontal alignment of these pipes is irregular and very uneven The pipes have not been laid on an even bed as they were being installed as could be seen by the irregular vertical and horizontal alignment of the pipes on site.

All improperly bedded and/or aligned pipes should be removed and re-laid correctly

All pipe manufacture must to be checked and the moulds modified to ensure the flanges can fit together properly

No payment should be made for these pipes until correctly aligned and correctly backfilled

The Engineer should issue a formal Rejection Notice

There has been no compliance with the requirement to rectify these poorly constructed pipe drains (refer photographs in Sub Section E.5 of this report)

AF-11 U-Ditch not correct

Specific Issue:- A constructed U-ditch does not conform to the drawing requirements

The levels of the covered U-Ditch level at Station 2+900 and the adjacent U-ditch do not conform to the requirements of the Drawings

The top level of the constructed U-ditch at one side of the road is higher than the other side, and it is also higher than the adjacent Retaining Wall.

The RSC to check this situation and issue site instruction to the Contractor in writing and follow up Contractor‟s actions. The Contractor must propose a solution acceptable to the Engineer and the Employer

This issue has been partly addressed only. The L-type Curb („kerb and channel‟) levels do not tie in with the levels of the top of the lined drain (refer Figure 8 in this report and Drawing ESS-01-R-1050)

Estimate 50% compliance with this requirement

A-12 Retaining Wall Filter not installed

Specific Issue:- The drainage filter layer designed for behind the retaining walls has

The RSC must check the overall situation with respect to retaining wall filters and issue

TFAC did NOT agree and does not have the authority to agree. TFAC suggested the



Audit Ref




not been installed, but the backfilling has been fully constructed in several locations.

appropriate site instructions in writing and follow up the Contractor‟s actions.

The Contractor must prepare a comprehensive method statement detailing how they will in fact install these filter layers

The RSC must approve this method statement before the work commences

Contractor should prepare a full method statement for this work and submit it to the RSC for approval

There has been no compliance with these requirements

AF-13 U-Ditch Construction Quality

Specific Issue:- The quality of construction of lined ditches on the project was very poor.

Audit inspections of U-ditch construction (covered and uncovered types) showed that there was considerable honey-combing of the concrete, the “slump” on the concrete being manufactured on site was too high, there were sections of lined ditch without weep holes

The RSC must check the manufacture of the covers and the concrete strengths.

The RSC must check that the location of the reinforcing steel on the cover slabs is as designed

The RSC must check with hammer test and reject all covers with concrete strength lower than the specification requirement

A reduction in payment should be made for lined drain covers until this problem is corrected

Construction quality of U-ditches has improved a little but there are still examples of poor concrete compaction

Estimate about 60% compliance with this requirement

AF-14 U-Ditch Covers on curves

Specific Issue:- The gaps between adjacent covers on U-ditches on curves is excessive

At Station 4+350 at the junction of an adjoining road, the Contractor has used the standard parallel side U-ditch cover which does not allow for the shape of the curve. The U-ditch covers have an opening between each adjacent cover varying from zero on the inside of the curve to about 100mm on the outside of the curve.

The Contractor to propose a better more acceptable solution for this location and all future similar situations

The RSC to assess the proposals and approve or reject as appropriate

In the event of rejection RSC to suggests an alternative

In the event that cast-in-situ U-ditch covers to suit the curve alignment are proposed then the Contractor and the RSC must suggest how the

There has been no compliance with these requirements for U-ditch covers on tight curves



Audit Ref




ditches are to be maintained and cleaned.

AF-15 Cross Drain at Station 5+229

Specific Issue:- The drain (culvert) crossing the road at station 5+229 has not been extended as intended by the design

At the Field Engineering stage the length of this drain, and other cross drain extensions, has been reduced compared to the requirements of the drawings

At station 5+229 the drawing requires a 2.80 metre extension to the right. The retaining wall has been built to the original drain headwall position.

The original design culvert lengths must be provided.

There should be no payment for demolition, or for the original cost of walls that now must be demolished.

Payment certificates measurement and amounts must be reduced by the value of retaining wall that is to be removed to enable the drain to be extended to the design length.

The Contractor and the RSC had been under the impression this culvert was not to be extended. They had misread the documents. This culvert is to be extended 2.80m


AF-16 Grade Preparation Shape and Compaction

Specific Issue:- Grade Preparation is not being completed to the correct level and is not well compacted

Gross errors were seen by the Auditor at Station 7+250 where Base A had already been stockpiled

The SSE must apply the Hold Point rule for all new grade preparation and must ensure that shape, CBR and density comply with specified requirements

The CWC must use survey stake out control supported when necessary by straight edge/water pass measurement

There has been improvement with compaction but grade preparation checked by the TFAC Monitoring team showed the grade preparation surface to be sloping back towards the centre if the road instead of 3% towards the outside of the formation

Estimated 50% compliance with this requirement but that physical aspect not done is critical. (slope)

AF-17 Earthworks and Pavement Compaction Widening

Specific Issue:- There is inadequate compaction of earthworks, sub-grade and pavement layers in narrow pavement widening sections.

The Contractor must obtain a suitable sized vibrating roller, preferably with variable amplitude and variable frequency capabilities.

There were no narrow widening sections of the pavement on-going during the time of the monitoring and therefore it was not possible to check their methods of compaction.

However, the width of sections in question during the April 2011 audit were generally less than 1.10m wide. The small roller the contractor had



Audit Ref




on site at that time was broken and when operating was not very effective.

AF-18 Aggregate Base A Levelling and Compaction

Specific Issue:- Aggregate Base A shape at station 7+250 was found to be incorrect. Densities at several locations were low and extensive segregation was identified.

Do not prime any further Aggregate Base A until the work has been correctly staked out, the respective pavement layer adjusted to the correct shape, compacted and all segregated areas repaired.

The SSE must apply Hold Point requirements and approve all Base A before prime coat applied

Ensure all further work is correctly staked out before being worked on.

The contractor now has level control and has installed lift and width stakes. However, a check on prepared base Class A showed the cross-falls to be wrong both on a straight section of road and on a super-elevated section

Estimated about 60% compliance with this requirement. The non-compliant portion (cross-fall) is critical.

AF-19 Prime Coat Construction

Specific Issue:- Prime coat spray application has been poorly implemented.

The RSC and the Contractor must check the condition and spraying capability of the bitumen distributor.

Tests should be conducted to ensure the spray application rate and distribution adequate before any more prime coat is applied. The prime coat is an important part of the pavement.

The Engineer should introduce application of the prime coat as a new Holding Point.

The Engineer should determine and approve the prime coat application rate

No further work request for asphalt works should be approved until the bitumen distributor is repaired and is able to apply the specified distribution rate uniformly and in a single pass.

This situation has not changed much. The bitumen distributor is poorly maintained and not capable of delivering a prime coat in accordance with the requirements of the specifications.

Inspection of the unit revealed that 2 nozzles were blocked

Estimated about 10% compliance with the requirements



Audit Ref




AF-20 Power Broom

Specific Issue:- The Contractor does not have a power broom on the site. The item of equipment is not on site and it is understood has not been ordered.

The Contractor must obtain a power broom.

In the meantime the Contractor under the supervision of the Engineer must use stiff brooms to clean the scale off the Base A layer prior to applying a prime coat.

The Contractor has acquired a baby power broom of the type only suitable for very small areas. It is not capable of doing the job required on road pavements (refer to Figure 10 in this report)

Under the circumstances no compliance with the requirement

AF-21 Incomplete Asphalt Binder and Asphalt Base Job Mixes

Specific Issue:- The retained Stability test was not carried out on the Job Mix. The bitumen absorption value for the mix should be reviewed.

Job Mixes were approved by the Site Supervision Team but not by the CSE. The results appear satisfactory except as noted above

Additional tests should be conducted and an adjustment should be made to the Job Mix design if found to be necessary.

No other action required. The CSE should review and approve the Job Mixes.

The Engineer should review the Engineer‟s Assistant authority regarding Job Mix approval. CSE level is recommended.

Samples were sent to Makassar about 2 months ago (4 months after the event ??). To date there has been no report on the findings.

Partial belated compliance with testing requirement.

No compliance with correction to mix if required

AF-22 Asphalt Finisher Screed Vibration

Specific Issue:- The Contractor has two asphalt finishers but the screed vibration does not work on either unit. Inspection of both units revealed that the screeds are not operational.

The Engineer must not approve any further asphalt until a satisfactory method of work and satisfactory final densities can be demonstrated in a trial.

The CWC must provide an asphalt finisher with a screed fitted with working tampers or vibrators.

The Engineer must prohibit the practice of spraying large volumes of water onto the freshly placed asphalt during compaction.

The Contractor was not laying asphalt during the time of the monitoring visit but it is understood the screed vibrators have been repaired and the water application corrected for the PTR roller.

Provided the vibrator is now working then 100% compliance with this requirement



Audit Ref




AF-23 Preparatory Work before Asphalt Construction

Specific Issue:- The Contractor has carried out asphalt construction throughout areas that are yet to have curbs (kerbs) constructed which component would normally be completed before the asphalt layers are constructed.

Placing of asphalt must be minimised in areas where minor side work is on-going.

Placing of wearing course asphalt (AC WC) must not be approved until related minor works especially pavement in widening areas, permanent or temporary drainage and curb lines have been completed at that location.

This practice has been partly corrected. However, asphalt wearing course has been laid on sections of the road that do not yet have side structures and/or pavement widening completed

Estimate about 40% compliance with the requirement

AF-24 Asphalt Binder Course Cross-Falls incorrect

Specific Issue:- The cross-falls on the completed asphalt binder layer were found to be incorrect in several tests carried out. At Station 6+200 (a straight section of the road) the cross fall on the Asphalt Binder layer were found to be -0,1% (LHS) and -4,3% (RHS).

RSC to issue site instruction in writing and follow up Contractor‟s actions

Requirements of Holding Points must be enforced. Up to this stage there are 4 holding points to approve (i) top of sub-grade (in widening), (ii) top of first Base A layer (iii) top of second base A layer, (iv) top of each asphalt layer.

The Contractor must install a sound level control on the project. The Engineer should review the road cross-falls and determine if correction of the road cross-falls is required at the Contractor‟s expense

This situation has not changed much. Cross falls taken by TFAC with a digital level showed the wrong cross falls for sub-grade. Base A and Asphalt.

Estimate no compliance with these requirements (refer to Figure 15 in this Report)

AF-25 Storage for Batu Bara (coal)

Specific Issue:- The existing Batu Bara (coal) stockpile for asphalt production is covered by a tarpaulin only. A storage shed is urgently needed.

The Contractor needs to construct a suitable storage shed as soon as possible before the onset of the wet season

No compliance with this requirement. The materials are still covered by a tarpaulin

AF-26 Asphalt Binder AC-BC Independent Test Results

Specific Issue:- The TFAC independent test found the AC BC grading to be seriously non-compliant. The asphalt absorption value

The contractor should review the batch proportions. The Engineer should increase the frequency of production testing until the problem is resolved. The contractor should


Partial belated compliance with testing



Audit Ref




differed significantly from the reported Job Mix value.

The grading result implies very poor control at the AMP

repeat the vacuum GMM test and adjust the Job Mix and the Engineer should review the Job Mix

requirement.


AF-27 Asphalt Binder AC-BC Independent Testing

Specific Issue: The TFAC independent test found the AC BC grading to be seriously non-compliant. The asphalt absorption value differed significantly from the reported Job Mix value.


The contractor should review the batch proportions. The Engineer should increase the frequency of production testing until the problem is resolved. The contractor should repeat the vacuum GMM test and adjust the Job Mix and the Engineer should review the Job Mix




AF-28 Selected Embankment Quantities for Sub-Grade Improvement

Specific Issue:- TFAC CBR test results did not support the contractor‟s claim for an increase in Selected Embankment quantity for use as Sub-grade Improvement.

The CWC must justify or review their Variation proposal for an increased quantity of Selected Embankment

Cleared by RSC

100% compliance with this requirement



SECTION E – SUPPORT AND ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS




SECTION E SUPPORT and ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS

E.1 Traffic Management

Apart from the one set of signs at a location where labour based work was proceeding with shoulder materials there were no traffic signs, speed limit signs, barriers, markers or police lines on the project. However, there were several locations where they are required such as at Station 19+600 to Station 19+800 and others there is a 30 cm deep drop-off from the existing road pavement onto the widening excavation which has not yet been covered with the aggregate Base A layer. This type of situation is a traffic hazard.

Figure 1 Typical unprotected pavement widening situation

E.2 Survey and Level Control

The Contractor has now installed temporary bench marks (TBMs)

Figure 2 Examples of new Temporary Bench Marks recently installed by the Contractor

(It is understood these TBMs have been installed using hand held GPS units).



E.3 Work Scheduling

Work scheduling is not being implemented appropriately:

There are long sections of the existing road with excavation for pavement widening and reconstruction opened up but not followed up with the next stage of the work as soon as placing and compaction of base aggregates. The Contractor advises that at the moment the stone dust stockpile (which is a component of mixed aggregate base A) at base camp is empty and he is waiting for more supplies of the material from the Barru quarry.

Completion of the drainage system throughout the project has been neglected. It appears the Contractor‟s main focus is on achievement of work progress (ie. to accelerate completion of the asphalt work) rather than attending to the completion of the road drainage system.

E.4 Environmental Monitoring

During the audit carried out in April 2011 it was reported that the contractor was dumping waste materials on private property. This practice is continuing and the contractor has been advised to obtain written permission from the land owners to protect himself and later the local authority against possible damage claims.

Figure 3 Dumping Practice in April 2011

Figure 4 Dumping Practice October 2011



E.5 Pipe Drain Construction

Pipe Drain Construction between station 3+000 and 4+000

Figure 5 Photographs taken in pipe drain between station 3+000 and station 4+000 on 6th October 2011

(These pipes were supposed to have been removed and re-laid correctly)

During the monitoring visit a section of pipe drain was exposed at station 0+200. It was noted that this section of exposed drain had not been laid correctly. This observation, combined with observations made during the April Audit of the pipe drain between station 3+000 and 4+000 (sections of which were photographed during this monitoring exercise and shown above) suggest the quality of all the pipe drains may be suspect.

Figure 6 Uncovered Pipe Drain at Station 0+200

Pipes not laid correctly



E.6 Cross Drain at Station 5+229

The cross drain at station 5+229 was designed to be extended 2.80m on the right hand side. This has not been done but the retaining wall has been curved into the old end-of-pipe. This now presents a traffic hazard because of its closeness to the edge of the carriageway (0.60m)

Figure 7 Culvert Extension required at Station 5+229

E.7 U-Ditch Top Levels Station 2+900

The error between the top levels of the u-ditches each side of the road at station 2+900 has been improved by constructing additional concrete wall height on the top of the lower U-ditch wall on the right hand side of the road to bring it to the same level as the ditch on the left hand side. However, it is now found that the top level of L-type kerb height does not match the top level of the U-ditch.

Figure 8 Kerb and Side Ditch levels

New retaining wall curved around to culvert outlet

End of existing culvert to be extended

Effective shoulder only 0.60m

Kerb level is supposed to match the top of the lined ditch



E.8 Sub-grade Preparation

Cross-falls taken with the digital level on sub-grade preparation showed these to be incorrect

Figure 9 Sub-grade Cross-fall at station 18+775

E.9 Base Class A Preparation

The compaction of Base class A is progressing fairly well but the cross-falls on the base are totally incorrect. These were checked with a digital level in the presence of the RSC and the Contractor and they varied between 0.0% and 0.1% over a short section of work less than 50.0m long. The cross-fall is designed as 3%

E.10 Asphalt Binder Course/Wearing Course

Asphalt Binder Course has been laid over 14.50km of the project but not all full width. Asphalt wearing course had been laid over a large proportion of the Asphalt Binder Course.

The Contractor does not have an adequate power broom and therefore is not complying with the requirement so the specifications regarding preparation for subsequent asphalt layers (General Specification 6.3.6.1)

The power broom the contractor has on site would take a long time to clean a section of pavement and then not very effectively.

Figure 10 Baby Power Broom on site ESS-01

About 250mm effective brushing



E.11 Drainage System Not Functioning

Most of side ditches and culverts are not yet fully operational to:

Side ditches not completed at many locations.

Catch basins (manholes) not yet finished and/or blocked by waste materials at several locations.

Kerb drainage pits have not been installed, and many would be at an incorrect level when installed due to the error of in U-ditch levels (higher or lower then the design requirement).

Insufficient effective cross drains outlets

Figure 11 One of several blocked Drainage System Outlets

There are several aspects of the drainage system that have been constructed incorrectly. For example

The side ditch at station 0+200 on the right hand side has been constructed as a pipe drain whereas the design details a lined ditch.

Figure 12 Incorrect Construction at station 0+200

House built over drainage channel pathway



The U-ditch approaches to the back front sides of a catch basin (each about 3m length) were not connected to the catch basin. Instead the Contractor has installed a reinforced concrete pipe. The design drawing requires the U-ditch to be connected to the catch basin.

Figure 13 Incomplete Drainage System

E.12 Poor Setting out of Retaining Walls

There are several retaining walls on the project that have been constructed with bends in the wall where they were designed to be straight. This was reported in the April Audit Report.

Since that time another retaining wall has been constructed with a kink where it should have been straight.

Figure 14 Retaining Wall at Station 21+200

E.13 Pavement Deflections

At station 15+000 the TFAC team noted the completed Base A construction deflecting under the passage of a loaded truck. Deflections that can be seen by the naked eye are usually about 2.0mm. These deflections were at least that amount. The Contractor advised he had seen similar deflations in other competed Base A construction. The Contractor also advised the 6 wheel truck had 12 tonnes on the rear dual axle.

Kink constructed in wall alignment



E.14 Typical Incorrect Pavement Cross-falls

Station As Constructed Surface Type Design

LH Carriageway RH Carriageway LH Carriageway RH Carriageway LH Carriageway RH Carriageway

0+000 -3.7 -2.8 Old Existing Old Existing -3.0 -3.0

0+225 -7.3 -2.2 Old Existing Old Existing -3.0 -3.0

0+230 -5.4 +1.2 AC-BC AC-BC -3.0 -3.0

0+260 -4.7 -2.7 AC-BC AC-BC -3.0 -3.0

0+400 +4.3 -7.0 AC-WC AC-WC -3.0 -3.0

1+200 -5.8 -4.5 AC-BC AC-WC -30 -3.0

1+230 -3.1 -1.9 AC-BC AC-WC -3.0 -3.0

13+975 -1.7 +0.2 AC-WC AC-BC -3.0 -3.0

14+250 -2.3 0.0 AC-WC AC-BC -3.0 -3.0

14+985 +3.7 -6.8 AC-BC Base A +4.0 -4.0

15+000 -4.9 +6.9 Base A Base A +4.0 -4.0

15+725 -8.4 +5.5 Base A Base A -4.0 +4.0

Random Check with Digital Level on Prepared Surfaces

Figure 15 Correction Example Station 14+250

(-2.3% AC-WC) (0.0% AC-BC)

Finished AC-WC

AC-BC

To get the correct cross fall the centre has to be raised 130mm or 90mm above the opposite side AC-WC and shaped right across at the Contractor‟s expense

Cross fall was 0.00 so AC must start at 40mm thickness



SECTION F – SUMMARY FINDINGS PPK/TFAC




SECTION F SUMMARY FINDINGS PPK/TFAC

Audit Observed Non-Conformity at April 2011

PPK Follow-Up Findings/Remarks August 2011

TFAC Monitoring Follow Up October 2011

AF-01 Insufficient Traffic Management

There was insufficient traffic control and traffic management on the project site

There were many work locations on site that encroached onto the carriageway. At several of these sites there were no traffic signs, traffic barriers, markers or police lines. This situation was noted at some locations where existing culverts were being extended and at locations where the excavation for road widening had not yet been backfilled. It was also noted that there were no traffic signs or traffic control at locations where equipment and/or works force was working on the project road.

In addition to traffic management steps are taken to provide protection at locations considered vulnerable to the safety of road users and the public. Contractor has been instructed to provide night lamps at required locations

The Contractor already install the traffic sign at every works zone as refer in the specification

There were three locations where work was in progress on the site. Only one of these locations had traffic control operating

There are no traffic speed signs anywhere on the site.

AF-02 Quality Control Plan and Method Statements Not Fully Utilised

The Contractor has prepared a Quality Control Plan and Method Statements for most site activities but these are not being fully utilised on the construction site.

Many aspects of the work being implemented do not conform to the design or specification requirements. Examples where this is evident are:

Cross falls incorrect on Aggregate Base A and AC-BC layer.

U-ditch top levels and alignment did not conform to the design requirements. The top levels of several sections of completed U-

If Contractor will produce method different from the already approved method and if it could produce better quality, then it will be analyzed and its use will be considered.

Difficult to estimate the percentage of compliance as:

Key sections of drainage system not operating

Sub-grade cross-falls are incorrect

Base A cross-falls are incorrect

Asphalt layer cross-falls are incorrect

Retaining walls do not have filter layers

Pipe drains incorrect construction

Etc.






ditches are very uneven and do not follow the vertical alignment of the pavement

RCP jointing and installation does not conform to the design requirements in several respects.

Low concrete strengths were recorded by the Auditor on large proportion of the completed concrete structures. On concrete lined ditches the strengths recorded were as low as 110.7kg/cm

2


The RSC does not have an effective up-to-date copy of their Quality Assurance Plan on site

An up-to-date hard copy of the RSC‟s Quality Assurance Plan is not available on site. The version the RSC has on site is the 2010 workshop copy which is mainly power point presentations (there is a soft copy of the 2009 version in English on the RSC site computer). RSC Check Lists are available on site but these are not being fully implemented. The requirements of Holding Points are not applied

A few of the checklists on the Requests For Works from the Contractor have been implemented, but most of these forms remained blank.

Non-conformities have been identified at most places where holding points should have been applied i.e : cross fall of Aggregate Base A and AC-BC layer, backfilling & filter layer behind the retaining wall, U-ditch alignment and top level, RCP jointing, low concrete strength, traffic signs and traffic management, etc.

In addition to check lists and Hold Points stated in the QAP, additional details have been issues for some work items, to simplify understanding the importance and application at site. It is planned that such details for the remaining work will be issued soon.

The latest version of the Quality Assurance Plan (September 2010) is on site in both hard copy and soft copy.

Requests for Work are being presented and approved.

Non-conformance reports are prepared and a register kept for these but work proceeds past these holding points without correction.

For example:

There has been no non-conformance registered for

Drainage – some sections of the newly paved road still cannot drain

Subgrade preparation – incorrect cross-falls, shape

Base Class A – incorrect cross-falls, shape

AC Binder Course - incorrect cross-falls, shape

AC Wearing Course - incorrect cross-falls, shape

Retaining Wall Filters

etc







The requirement of the Holding Points are not being recognised by either the RSC or the Contractor

The lack of survey control, inadequate compaction of sub-grade, incorrect road cross falls, pipe culverts, drainage structures, etc. reinforce the Auditor‟s view that holding points are not being recognised

The requirements of Holding Points are not being applied. This is evident by the numbers of non-conformities for work that has progressed past a holding point and noted by the Auditor

With the delivery of additional details as mentioned i.e in both English and Indonesian, it is believed that the works could be performed fully conforming to requirements and with increased speed.

The non-conformities noted at the April Audit, and those which are still not being attended to as the project progresses and observed during the October TFAC Monitoring , highlight the lack of implementation of the requirements of Holding Points.


The Auditor found the survey and level control on the project to be completely inadequate.

There are not enough survey control points located on the project to adequately control the horizontal and vertical alignment of the road or the levels on the structures.

The bench marks will be located at safe points to prevent loss during construction and tampered by locals. Further, detailed record of data will be maintained to relocate them if needed.

The Contractor has installed Temporary Bench Marks generally at 1.0km intervals and in some places at 0.5km intervals. It is understood these TBMs have been installed using a hand-held GPS unit. Intersection Points (IP) have been re-established using Total Station equipment. The use of hand-held GPs units is of debatable accuracy. The TFAC hand held GPS gave an accuracy of 4.00m at one location checked.

The Contractor has also installed lift stakes in several locations.


The scheduling of some work components of the Contractors operations need to be more carefully assessed and applied. Some components of work are not programmed to best advantage.

Due to advanced works long sections of sub-grade preparation and side ditch excavation are at risk

Construction Management tools such as Bar Chart, Flow Chart, Vector Diagram etc. will be produced to check and ensure that suitable realistic schedule is produced and could be implemented on site.

The Contractor has been prepared and

Work scheduling has improved in some areas. However, there are many locations where work should have been completed by this time. For example:

Correction of the non-compliant side ditch works between station 0+000 and station 4+200.






damage and they present traffic hazards. The contractor has opened up a lot of excavation for lined drains well ahead of construction. The same applies to the pavement widening which needs to be followed up with the base as soon as possible after the sub-grade has been approved. There is now a risk of damage occurring due to rain and the extensive open edges of the existing road present a traffic hazard. There are several locations where these activities are ongoing.

implemented the Construction Management tools normally and especially in Test case of SCM

Correction of the non-compliant pipe drains between station 3+000 and station 4+200

Installation of the filters behind retaining walls

Construction of outlet channels station 0+000 to station 3+000

Installation of an effective drainage system

Etc.


The Contractor is using and fully loading trucks with body capacities that produce axle loads much higher than allowable.

The Contractor is presently operating haulage trucks of two different configurations. One of these is a 2 axle truck with a body that carries 7-8 cubic metres. The other is a 3 axle truck with a body that carries15-16 cubic metres and can be loaded to 20 cubic metres. The 2 axle truck fully loaded all up weight will be about 23 tonnes giving 16 tonnes on the rear axle. The 3 axle truck fully loaded all up weight will be about 35 tonnes or 25 tonnes on the rear axle group. A legal load for the 2 axle truck is 10 tonnes on the rear axle and for the 3 axle truck 20 tonnes on the rear tandem axle. Both units are grossly overloaded

The permissible volume/No. of bucket loads will be determined analytically and will be ensured that the load limit will not be exceeded.

Contractor already constructed the weight bridge (truck scale) at base camp to implement the matter above

The Contractor is still overloading vehicles using large truck bodies and hauling 45-50km from Barru to the site

The Contractor advised that trucks hauling for on site construction are carrying 12 tonnes on the single dual rear axle.

AF-08 Environmental

The Contractors operations are causing environmental damage

The Contractor is depositing excavation waste materials over the sides of the road into gullies and onto private property. This is creating

For ensure the causing of environmental damage the Contractor has been prepared one water tank & implemented to the road for watering to the area to minimize pollution.

The materials dumped onto private property have not been cleaned up and there is no written approval from land owners for this practice which is continuing






pollution and effecting private land and waterways

AF-09 Road Width Too Narrow

Road width (from inner side to inner side of U-ditch walls) was found to be less than as required by the Drawings

At Station 2+300 and adjacent locations, the width between the lined ditches on each side of the road was measured and found to be only 8,20-8,40m (this is less than 8,50m defined in the Drawings).

Rectifications will be made as required and the requirements will be enforced in new construction

Now the Contractor already remedial the U-ditch to conform with the JMF and removed the old U-ditch, as at U-ditch LHS (sta. 8+900)

This narrow road situation has not been corrected. It is unlikely this will be implemented as does not effect the performance of the road and to correct it would mean completely removing and replacing the at least the ditch on one side of the road


The construction of the pipe drain designed for sections of the road commencing from station 0+000 was found by the Auditor to be very poor

The contractor is currently installing pipe drains from station 3+000 forward. Both the vertical and horizontal alignment of these pipes is irregular and very uneven The pipes have not been laid on an even bed as they were being installed as could be seen by the irregular vertical and horizontal alignment of the pipes on site.

The jointing of the pipes is very poor and water will leak into the soil

The haunching of the pipes is very poor and ineffectual

The pipes have not been bedded up the bottom third of the pipe as required by standard practice and indications are that the pipes have just been laid on the ground that was excavated by the machine without any form of levelling or compaction of the base on which the pipes were to be laid.

Rectifications will be made as required at the remaining locations. The requirements will be fully enforced in new construction.

Several location of RCP performed by Contractor as per drawing. For example at sta. 4+500

There has been no compliance with the requirement to rectify these poorly constructed pipe drains (refer Figure and Figure 6 in this report)






The manufacture of the pipes is poor in that the male flange is too large to fit into the socket of the adjoining pipe

AF-11 U-Ditch Not Correct

A constructed U-ditch does not conform to the drawing requirements

The levels of the covered U-Ditch level at Station 2+900 and the adjacent U-ditch do not conform to the requirements of the Drawings

The top level of the constructed U-ditch at one side of the road is higher than the other side, and it is also higher than the adjacent Retaining Wall.

This problem is common for road side works from Station 0+000 to Station 4+000

Only when the works are completed as required, the works will be measured for payment, excluding the additional works required due to his own failure to complete the works as required.

Now the Contractor already remedial the U-ditch to conform with the Drawing, as levels at U-ditch LHS (sta,2+900)

This issue has been partly addressed only. The kerb and channel levels do not tie in levels of the top of the lined drain (refer Figure 8 in this report and Drawing ESS-01-R-1050)

AF-12 Retaining Wall Filter Layer Not Installed

The drainage filter layer deigned for behind the retaining walls has not been installed, but the backfilling has been fully constructed in several locations

Several retaining walls were inspected by the Auditor in the presence of the Contractor and the RSC and it was greed the filter layer had not been installed. It is understood it is the Contractor‟s intention to excavate behind the wall at a later stage and install the filter layer.

During the TFAC Audit the difficulty in construction and the method that will used was explained. The TFAC team agreed with the proposed revised method for adoption.

TFAC did NOT agree and does not have the authority to agree. TFAC suggested the Contractor should prepare a full method statement for this work and submit it to the RSC for approval



The quality of construction of lined ditches on the project was very poor.

Audit inspections of U-ditch construction (covered and uncovered types) showed that there was

At some locations where material was placed between forms, for the formation of weep holes were covered with mortar crust during concreting. They will be opened and the holes

Construction quality of U-ditches has improved a little but there are still examples of poor concrete compaction.






considerable honey-combing of the concrete, the “slump” on the concrete being manufactured on site was too high, there were sections of lined ditch without weep holes. Ditch outlets were not finished correctly, the lined ditch covers were poorly finished and the strength of the concrete in these covers too low. 67% of the impact tests carried out on lined ditches returned concrete strengths less than the specified requirement.

For the lined ditch covers results of impact testing were as low a 161kg/cm

2 the specification

requirement is 250kg/cm2

Concrete strengths for the lined ditch walls was as low as 111kg/cm

2

made good. If necessary additional weep holes will be drilled through with suitable boring tool.

AF-14 U-Ditch Covers on Curves

The gaps between adjacent covers on U-ditches on curves is excessive

At Station 4+350 at the junction of an adjoining road, the Contractor has used the standard parallel sided U-ditch cover which does not allow for the shape of the curve. The U-ditch covers have an opening between each adjacent cover varying from zero on the inside of the curve to about 100mm on the outside of the curve. (Refer to Audit Form-14)

Now the Contractor already remedial the U-ditch covers to conform with the alignment of ditch with method of site concreting, as at U-ditch LHS (sta. 5+900)

There has been no compliance with these requirements for the U-ditch covers on tight curves


The drain (culvert) crossing the road at station 5+375 has not been extended as intended by the design

At the Field Engineering stage the length of this drain, and other cross drain extensions, has been reduced compared to the requirements of the

Rectifications will be made at the remaining locations. The requirements will be fully enforced in new construction. Especially at Sta. 5+350the Contractor has already remedial the work

The Contractor and the RSC had been under the impression this culvert was not be extended. They had misread the documents. This culvert is to be extended 2.80m






drawings

At station 5+375 the drawing requires a 2 metre extension to the right. The retaining wall has been built to the original drain headwall position.


Grade Preparation is not being completed to the correct level and is not well compacted

Gross errors were seen by the Auditor at Station 7+250 where Base A had already been stockpiled. Grade preparation levels are a likely root cause of poor asphalt shape elsewhere. Neither setting out pegs, cross-fall devices or other aids have been used so correct road shape is impossible. This problem is believed to affect the first 7.2 km of the project

All works are checked during construction and on completion. When defects are detected they are rectified. Requirements will be strictly adhered to in the future construction.

There has been improvement with compaction but grade preparation checked by the TFAC Monitoring team showed the grade preparation surface to be sloping back towards the centre if the road instead of 3% towards the outside of the formation

AF-17 Earthworks and Pavement Compaction for Widening

There is inadequate compaction of earthworks, sub-grade and pavement layers in narrow pavement widening sections

There are several sections where the pavement is being widened by less than 1.2 metres and the contractor does not currently have a suitable working roller for the compaction of these areas. He has a small double drum roller but this is broken. There are currently several areas of widening that cannot be adequately compacted such as at station 2+750. The Contractor requires a suitable roller of 2-3 tonne weight, preferably a small vibrating taper-foot unit.

Rectification will be made as required at the remaining locations. The requirements will be fully enforced in new construction of grade preparation. Especially at Sta. the Contractor already remedial the work.

There were no narrow widening sections of the pavement on-going during the time of the monitoring and therefore it was not possible to check their methods of compaction.

However, the width of sections in question during the April 2011 audit were generally less than 1.10m wide. The small roller the contractor had on site at that time was broken and when operating was not very effective.







Aggregate Base A shape at station 7+250 was found to be incorrect. Densities at several locations were low and extensive segregation was identified

It is considered this particular finding probably affects work from Station 5+500 to station 7+250. Visual evidence is provided in the Audit Forms (Audit Form -18) by photos. Both destructive and non-destructive density testing was undertaken (refer to Test Summary). Compaction densities were as low as 94% vs 98% specified. Site shape measurement on layer 1 Base A being compacted, indicated a cross section level error of 120 mm representing a cross-fall error of 4% (+1% measured vs -3% design). Severely segregated areas are obvious and have not been repaired

Though material was produced using aggregate mixing plant, very often segregation has occurred. The request was made on several occasions to allow mixing in the camp, using loader to minimise segregation, but was rejected.

Further, volume of production will be increased if mixing with loaders will be permitted.

The contractor now has level control and has installed lift and width stakes. However, a check on prepared base Class A showed the cross-falls to be wrong both on a straight section of road and on a super-elevated section

The non-compliant aspect of the pavement (the cross-fall) is critical


Prime coat spray application has been poorly implemented

All prime coat applied by the Contractor had been covered with the next pavement layer at the time of audit. However, the prime coat applied at station 6+880 to the right shoulder at station 6+880 was poorly distributed and extended well outside the edge of the asphalt layer. The very light spray application for a width of approximately 600mm suggests there was a problem with the bitumen distributor at the time.

The Contractor has prepared a method statement for prime coat and included in this statement a photograph of the bitumen distributor applying the

Since asphalt is constructed on half width and the remaining half is used by traffic, very often vehicle wheels pass over the area outside the asphalt edge and remove sprayed prime coat present in that area. It creates the impression as though the prime coat is not applied properly

For ensure the rate of prime coat the Contractor install the traffic sign safety at road as necessary

This situation has not changed much. The bitumen distributor is poorly maintained and not capable of delivering a prime coat in accordance with the requirements of the specifications.

Inspection of the unit revealed that 2 nozzles were blocked






prime. This photograph showed extensive streaking of the prime and the spray bar far too high above the road surface. The method statement also suggested prime coat spray rates varying between 0.15 litres per m

2 to 2.4 litres per

m2. Neither of these would be applicable to a

normal primer coat.

AF-20 Power Broom

The Contractor does not have a power broom on the site

The item of equipment is not on site and it is understood has not been ordered. The Contractor has placed several kilometres of asphalt base and overlaid this with asphalt binder. The surface of the asphalt base was to have been cleaned with a power broom.

Now the Contractor already mobilized a power broom and immediate to use for the next works

The Contractor has acquired a baby power broom of the type only suitable for very small areas. It is not capable of doing the job required on road pavements (refer to section D in this report)


The retained Stability test was not carried out on the Job Mix. The bitumen absorption value for the mix should be reviewed.

Job Mixes were approved by the Site Supervision Team but not by the CSE. The results appear satisfactory except as noted above

The JMF was rechecked & testing at laboratory in Base Camp by

RSC – Team Makassar held by Pavement/Material Engineer Mr Marthen Keintjeng





The Contractor has two asphalt finishers but the screed vibration does not work on either unit.

Inspection of both units revealed that the screeds are not operational. This adversely affects initial important asphalt compaction. It also affects initial rolling temperature, time of follow up of

The finisher already repaired by the Contractor and now the finisher’s screed vibrator is operating properly

The Contractor was not laying asphalt during the time of the monitoring visit but it is understood the screed vibrators have been repaired and the water application corrected for the PTR roller






compaction equipment and Asphalt finished texture. Measured asphalt densities were typically 96% compared to the specified minimum of 98%. On site large quantities of water were being sprayed onto the asphalt mat, possibly to counter the negative effect of lack of vibration.


The Contractor has carried out asphalt construction throughout areas that are yet to have curbs (kerbs) constructed which component would normally be completed before the asphalt layers are constructed

Asphalt works have been constructed over most of the first 7.00km of the project including most of the first 4.20km for which the designs detail curb (kerb) construction both sides of the road.

Now the Contractor already performed of the U-ditch, stone masonry and cross drain before staring the hot mix pavement works

This practice has been partly corrected. However, asphalt wearing course has been laid on sections of the road that do not yet have side structures and/or pavement widening completed

AF-24 Asphalt Binder Course Cross-Falls Incorrect

The cross-falls on the completed asphalt binder layer were found to be incorrect in several tests carried out

Asphalt Binder Course layers and Aggregate Base A layers have been constructed with cross falls that do not comply to the requirements of the Drawings. At Station 6+200 (a straight section of the road) the cross fall on the Asphalt Binder layer were found to be -0,1% (LHS) and -4,3% (RHS).

These are straight sections of road in the design and therefore the road cross fall should be -3% at both sides of road centreline.

Until now the cross fall of pavement (AC-BC & AC-WC) already performing 3%

The Contractor prepared cross fall 3% started from preparing of aggregate Base Class A until placing the final hot mix pavement

This situation has not changed much. Cross falls taken by TFAC with a digital level showed the wrong cross falls for sub-grade. Base A and Asphalt. (refer to Figure 15 in this Report)







Batu Bara (coal) for asphalt for firing the asphalt mix plant for asphalt production should be protected from rain

The existing Batu Bara (coal) stockpile for asphalt production is covered by a tarpaulin only. A storage shed is urgently needed.

The Contractor prepared of cover to ensure the coal protected from rain, should be continuously to production the asphalt mixture

No compliance with this requirement. The materials are still covered by a tarpaulin

AF-26 Asphalt Binder AC BC Independent Test Results

The TFAC independent test found the AC BC grading to be seriously non-compliant. The asphalt absorption value differed significantly from the reported Job Mix value.


No comment


AF-27 Asphalt Binder AC BC Independent Testing

The TFAC independent test found the grading to be seriously non-compliant. The asphalt absorption value differed significantly from the reported Job Mix value.

The grading result implies poor control at the AMP.

No comment


AF-28 Selected Embankment Quantities for Sub-grade Improvement

TFAC CBR test results did not support the contractor‟s claim for an increase in Selected Embankment quantity for use as Sub-grade Improvement

The CWC has made a large variation claim for an additional quantity of Selected Embankment for sub grade improvement based partly on Field

No comment

Cleared by RSC






Engineering CBR tests. The audit teams testing program found no CBR values justifying an increase in quantity.



SECTION G – CONSEQUENCES/RECOMMENDATIONS




SECTION G CONSEQUENCES/RECOMMENDATIONS

Item Non-Conformity Noted Extent of Problem Caused by Continuation of the Non-Conformity

Recommendation

AF-01 Traffic Management and Traffic Signs

Specific Issue:- There was insufficient traffic control and traffic management on the project site

This section of road (Package ESS-01) has the following design horizontal geometry (design speed incurves)

40 kph curves = 9 numbers



Otherwise a general design speed value of 60kph

Potential accident situations. For safety reasons the speeds MUST be posted as required

Once asphalt has been laid then speed signs MUST be installed and related to the design speed for that section of road. That is, once a section has had asphalt laid

the overall design speed should be posted at regular intervals on all sections of the road that have asphalt laid

The design speed posted at all curves that have asphalt laid

Appropriate speed restriction signs posted at all works locations

AF-02 Quality Control Plan and Method Statements

Specific Issue:- The Contractor has prepared a Quality Control Plan and basic Method Statements for most site activities but these are not being fully utilised on the construction site.

Continued lack of implementation of the requirements of the Quality Control Plan is resulting in several components of the project being constructed to a lower standard than the design requirements. This in turn will produce a facility that will not perform as required and paid for.

Work that is sub-standard and at a level that will seriously reduce the life of the facility:

Must be rejected and corrected or redone.

Must not be considered for partial payment if the life of the structure is likely to be seriously reduced or a traffic hazard has been created


Specific Issue:- An up-to-date hard copy of the RSC‟s Quality Assurance Plan is not available on site.

The latest version of the RSC Quality Assurance Plan is now on site (in English and Bahasa Indonesia)

The Engineer MUST formally instruct his site staff to implement the requirements of the QAP




Recommendation


Specific Issue:- The requirement of the Holding Points are not being recognised by either the RSC or the Contractor .

Wide spread non-conformities, sub-standard work and a drastically reduced service life of the facility

This is a major issue. The Engineer MUST formally instruct his staff to implement the requirements of Holding Points


Specific Issue:- The Auditor found the survey and level control on the project to be completely inadequate.

Incorrect road levels

Incorrect super-elevation on road curves

Incorrect road cross-falls

Incorrect fill and cut batter slopes

Trimble to be used to check all the control points at 3-4 months after contract start-up. It may be possible to agree with the Trimble Contractors a Lump Sum amount per monument or per kilometre as a separate contract.


Specific Issue:- The scheduling of some work components of the Contractors operations need to be more carefully assessed and applied. Some components of work are not programmed to the best advantage.

Poor progress of works

Poor use of resources

Development of unnecessary traffic and general safety hazards

The documents require that the Engineer approves work sequencing. The Engineer MUST formally instruct his site staff to implement this requirement


The Contractor is using and fully loaded trucks with body capacities that produce axle loads much higher than allowable

This activity in general and is causing severe damage to National roads used for hauling materials

All trucks should be loaded such that the axle weights comply with the standard axle loads for the class of road being utilised.

The CWC and the RSC must obtain copies of the axle weight restrictions for all roads being used for materials haulage for the project and ensure these load restrictions are observed.

AF-08 Environmental

Specific Issue:- The Contractors operations are causing environmental damage

Damage to private and public property

Possible long term rectification costs for the road authority

The RSC Environmental Engineer should carry out a full environmental site inspection and prepare a report covering his findings




Recommendation

AF-09 Road Width too Narrow

Specific Issue:- Road width (from inner side to inner side of U-ditch walls) was found to be less than as required by the Drawings

It is not expected that this non-conformity will cause any problems but it is not in accordance with the design as it reduces the pavement design from 7.00m to 6.70m and 6.90m

Reduction in payment for the item to cover the reduced volume of materials used.


Specific Issue:- The construction of the pipe drain designed for sections of the road commencing from station 0+000 was found by the Auditor to be very poor

Probable seepage of storm water from the pipes into the road sub-grade

Softening of the road foundations

Blockages of the pipes due to offset joints

Infiltration of fine materials and siltation of the pipe line

The RSC must inspect all the pipe lines and assess the extent of work required to ensure the drains do not affect the road foundation, collapse or block up prematurely.

RSC must then prepare a report detailing what corrective action the Contractor should be required to implement to protect the owners interests.

AF-11 U-Ditch not correct

Specific Issue:- A constructed U-ditch does not conform to the drawing requirements

Poor visual impression

Irregular kerb, ditch and footpath levels

Uneven heights of roadside facilities above the road carriageway

The Engineer should formally instruct his site staff to issue appropriate site instructions to correct this non-conforming work

to the extent there are no adverse visual impressions and

there are no hazards for pedestrian traffic using the footpaths.

AF-12 Retaining Wall Filter not installed

Specific Issue:- The drainage filter layer deigned for behind the retaining walls has not been installed, but the backfilling has been fully constructed in several locations

Weakened structure due to the non-relief of hydrostatic pressure behind the walls and

Altered soil conditions due to moisture trapped behind the walls

Contractor to prepare a method statement detailed how he will now install the filter

layers

RSC to check and approve this method statement

RSC to ensure the work is implemented

Part payment should be withheld




Recommendation


Specific Issue:- The quality of construction of lined ditches on the project was very poor.

Reduced life of the structures

Possible collapse in sections where concrete tested too weak

The Engineer must more diligently check construction work and

Issue an appropriate site instruction if there is no visible means on site for compacting the concrete

Test concrete for strength more frequently

Issue an instruction to stop work if it the work does not comply

There are two holding points available here e) and k)

AF-14 U-Ditch Covers on curves

Specific Issue:- The gaps between adjacent covers on U-ditches on curves is excessive

Hazard for Pedestrians

RSC must issue a site instruction to the Contractor requiring him to construct and install the appropriate shape and strength lined drain covers for all such situations. This action should be implemented now.


Specific Issue:- The drain (culvert) crossing the road at station 5+229 has not been extended as intended by the design

This is currently a traffic hazard and a potential serious accident situation

The RSC must issue a site instruction to the Contractor to correct this situation as soon as possible


Specific Issue:- Grade Preparation is not being completed to the correct level and is not well compacted

Poor pavement drainage

Weak structure to trapped moisture

The RSC must issue site instructions for incorrect grade preparation and suspend work if grade preparation is not being done properly. Holding Point (f) applies

AF-17 Earthworks and Pavement Compaction Widening

Specific Issue:- There is inadequate

Non completion of compaction in the outer




Recommendation

compaction of earthworks, sub-grade and pavement layers in narrow pavement widening sections

section of the sealed road shoulder which is against the lined drain will allow

early in-service consolidation under traffic loading and subsequent pavement deformation

moisture to penetrate more easily with consequent softening of the shoulder and pavement

The RSC

Must issue site instruction where necessary to ensure these situations are properly corrected.

be required to certify that these issues have been adequately corrected


Specific Issue:- Aggregate Base A shape at station 7+250 was found to be incorrect. Densities at several locations were low and extensive segregation was identified.

Inadequate pavement drainage

Poor pavement riding quality

Weak pavement

This situation regarding compaction and densities has improved


Specific Issue:- Prime coat spray application has been poorly implemented.

Poor bonding of surface of base layer

Poor adhesion of subsequent asphalt layer

Inadequate water proofing of the top of the base layer

The RSC MUST issue a site instruction requiring the Contractor to provide a bitumen distributor capable of construction the specified quality of prime coat.

AF-20 Power Broom

Specific Issue:- The Contractor does not have a power broom on the site. The item of equipment is not on site and it is understood has not been ordered.

Inadequately cleaned existing or previous asphalt layer

Poor binding of subsequent asphalt layer to the previous asphalt layer.

RSC to instruct the Contractor to obtain a suitable power broom as soon as possible


Specific Issue:- The retained Stability test was not carried out on the Job Mix. The bitumen absorption value for the mix should be reviewed

Incorrect residual asphalt bitumen content if the bitumen absorption value not correct

Asphalt samples have been sent to Makassar for testing two months ago.

The results of these tests must be advised to the on site RSC and the Contractor and any required




Recommendation

corrective action taken now.


Specific Issue:- The Contractor has two asphalt finishers but the screed vibration does not work on either unit. Inspection of both units revealed that the screeds are not operational

Continued construction of asphalt pavements using a paver that does not apply the initial compaction will result in an uneven surface and possible longer term consolidation of the asphalt pavement layer usually manifesting itself as minor rutting.

The asphalt finishes were not being operated while the TFAC team was on the site but it is understood the vibrators have been repaired satisfactorily


Specific Issue:- The Contractor has carried out asphalt construction throughout areas that are yet to have curbs (kerbs) constructed which component would normally be completed before the asphalt layers are constructed.

Continuation of this practice will ultimately produce a lower standard completed facility due to the difficulty of finishing off the narrow strips of paving at the sides of the road against the kerbs and lined drains.

This is a work sequencing issue which requires prior approval from the RSC. (Drawing Notes). RSC must issue appropriate site instructions early in the program to require the Contractor to complete this work before applying asphalt in the particular sections

AF-24 Asphalt Binder Course Cross-Falls incorrect

Specific Issue:- The cross-falls on the completed asphalt binder layer were found to be incorrect in several tests carried out. At Station 6+200 (a straight section of the road) the cross fall on the Asphalt Binder layer were found to be -0,1% (LHS) and -4,3% (RHS).

Incorrect pavement cross-falls

Do not allow water to drain off the surface if the pavement cross-fall slopes are too shallow

Trap water in very shallow depressions in the pavement surface if the pavement cross-fall slopes are too shallow

Allow traffic to impact the water into the pavement if the pavement cross-fall slopes are too shallow and cause pavement failures through potholing and/or stripping of the binder from the aggregate

Incorrect pavement cross-falls if too steep

Pavement cross-falls that vary by more than 1.0% from the design requirements must be corrected.

In the case of minimum cross-falls these should not at any stage be less than 2.5% for effective surface drainage

The RSC and the Contractor must:

urgently check all pavement cross-falls (including super-elevations)

prepare a program of works to correct all the defective cross-falls

set a time limit for these

withhold at least partial payment from all




Recommendation

produce situations where vehicles can veer of the road and if the cross-falls are irregular then the riding quality of the road is reduced.

asphalt billings until such time as the situation is considered correct and so certified (by RSC-CSE).


Specific Issue:- The existing Batu Bara (coal) stockpile for asphalt production is covered by a tarpaulin only. A storage shed is urgently needed.

Batu baru that is stored outside is subject to the weather conditions. If it gets wet then it is very difficult to control the temperature in the coal fired asphalt plant. Difficulty is experienced with temperature control in coal fired AC plant under normal circumstances with Batu Baru stored in sheds

The Contractor still has not provided proper covered stored for his coal supplies.

During the last few months the weather has been fine but the wet season is now due in a few weeks

The RSC must issue a site instruction to the Contractor to provide adequate storage to protect the coal firing supplies from the weather

AF-26 Asphalt Binder AC-BC Independent Test Results

Specific Issue:- The TFAC independent test found the AC BC grading to be seriously non-compliant. The asphalt absorption value differed significantly from the reported Job Mix value

Incorrect residual asphalt bitumen content if the bitumen absorption value not correct

This issue is currently in the hands of RSC Makassar who have had independent testing conducted on samples of the asphalt

However, this problem was first mentioned in April 2011 in the TFAC Audit Findings and it was only two months ago that sample were sent for testing.

At the time of the TFAC monitoring 6-7 October 2011, there had been no test results sent back to the site

The results of the tests carried out for RSC at Makassar must be advised to the on site RSC staff and the Contractor, and any required corrective action taken now.

AF-27 Asphalt Binder AC-BC Independent Testing

Specific Issue: The TFAC independent test found the AC BC grading to be seriously non-compliant. The asphalt

Incorrect residual asphalt bitumen content if the bitumen absorption value not correct.

This issue is currently in the hands of RSC

The results of the tests carried out for RSC at Makassar must be advised to the on site RSC staff and the Contractor, and any required corrective




Recommendation

absorption value differed significantly from the reported Job Mix value.

Makassar who have had independent testing conducted on sample of the asphalt

However, this problem was first muted in April 2011 in the TFAC Audit Findings and it was only two months ago that samples were sent for testing

At the time of the TFAC monitoring 6-7 October 2011, there had been no test results sent back to the site

action taken now.

AF-28 Selected Embankment Quantities for Sub-Grade Improvement

Specific Issue:- TFAC CBR test results did not support the contractor‟s claim for an increase in Selected Embankment quantity for use as Sub-grade Improvement.

This situation has been resolved

No further action required

Documents

Eastern Indonesia National Road Improvement Project ...kiat.or.id/resx/upload/Example_of_Monitoring_Audit_Repo.pdf · Doc. ID: B015 – ESS-01 Audit Monitoring Report 1 SECTION A