Scanned with CamScanner

GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF M&E
(EVALUATION SECTION)
RED

EVALUATION REPORT

“DEVELOPMENT OF BIODIVERSITY PARKS IN COLLABORATION WITH

CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENTS, DISTRICT GOVERNMENTS &
BUSINESS COMMUNITIES”

PREPARED BY

Syed Ayaz M. Haider (Deputy Director Project Management)

Ms. Ambreen Ghazanfar (Assistant Director Environment)

April, 2022
 ABOUT THE COVER PAGE

• The evaluation of the project will be conducted strictly on the basis of Evaluation Rating Index
attached as (Annexure-B). The grading of Evaluation Rating Index will decide whether the
project will fall in Red, Yellow, or Green category.

• Green: If overall Evaluation Rating of the project is

above 70, the project is considered as Successful.
• Yellow: If overall Evaluation Rating of the project is in
between 35-70, the project is considered as Partially
Successful.
• Red: If overall Evaluation Rating of the project is less
than 35, the project is considered as Not Successful.

Successful
Partially Successful
Not Successful
 EVALUATION REPORT
(Rs. in Million)
# Activity
Progress/ Status
Description
A Project Profile
1. GS No.
2. Project Name Development of Biodiversity Parks in collaboration with City District
Governments, District Governments & Business Communities.
3. Location (i) Kasur
(City, District, (ii) Dera Ghazi Khan
Province) (iii) Cholistan
(iv) Murree
4 GPS N 33° 54ʹ 50ʺ
Coordinates E 73° 23ʹ 20ʺ
5 Date of Visit 21-22 April, 2022 (Murree)
6 Report Type Evaluation
7 Sponsoring Government of the Punjab, Environment Protection Department
Department
8 Executing Environmental Protection Agency, Punjab through:
Department/ i. District Government Kasur
Agency ii. District Government DG Khan
iii. Cholistan Development Authority (CDA)
iv. IUCN-Pakistan
9 Name of Sr.
Project Name & Designation From To
No.
Director (PD)
1. Mr. Amir Farooq DD(Lab), EPA Punjab Feb 2009 Feb 2010
2. Mr. Amir Farooq, DD(TT), EPA Punjab Mar 2010 July 2010
Mr. Muhammad Tahir, DD(TT), EPA
3. Aug 2010 Mar 2013
Punjab
Mr. Shahid Hassan, DD(TT), EPA
4. Mar 2013 June 2015
Punjab
Mr. Waseem Ahsan Cheema DD(TT),
5. June 2015 Mar 2016
EPA Punjab
Ms. Maryam Khan DD(TT), EPA
6. April 2016 Dec2016
Punjab
7. Mr. Azhar Iqbal DD(TT), EPA Punjab Jan 2017 Aug 2018
Mrs. Maria Safeer, DD(TT), EPA
8. Oct 2018 May 2019
Punjab
Mr. Imtiaz Rasool Alvi, DD(TT), EPA
9. May 2019 July 2020
Punjab
Mr. Misbah-ul-Haq Lodhi, DD(TT), EPA
10. July 2020 Feb 2022
Punjab.
11. Mr. Anjum Riaz, DD(TT), EPA Punjab Current PD
10 PDs Contact 0333-6926261
No. and [email protected]
Email
11 Consultant
N/A
Feasibility
 (if Any)
12 Consultant International Union for Conservation of Nature & Natural Resources (IUCN)
Design for Murree Biodiversity Park (MBP)
13 Consultant
IUCN for MBP
Supervision
14 Name of
(i) Kestral (ii) OHA
Contractors/
(Building Contractors for Murree Biodiversity Park hired by IUCN)
Suppliers
15 Original
Estimated Rs. 184.5 million (As per original PC-I)
Cost
16 PC-I Cost
Estimation Market Rate Analysis (MRS)
Basis
17 Date of
Approval of 30-01-2009 (DDSC)
Original PC-I
18 Date of
Approval of
14-03-2017 (DDSC)
Revised PC-I
(7th Revision)
19 Approval Date of Administrative
Total Cost Approving Forum
Status Approval
Original Rs. 184.5 million 10-02-2009
1st Revision Rs. 181.489 million 31-03-2010
2nd Revision Rs. 181.489 million nd
2 revised AA not
shared
Dec-2011 as per PC-IV
DDSC
3rd Revision Rs. 148.782 million 14-06-2013
4th Revision Rs. 149.939 million 19-11-2013
5th Revision Rs. 167.371 million 06-03-2014
6th Revision Rs. 167.371 million 01-12-2014
7th Revision Rs. 181.611 million 15-03-2017
20 Actual Date
of July, 2008 (As per PC-IV)
Commencem A.A of original PC-I issued on 10-02-2009
ent
21 Original
Completion June, 2013 (As per PC-IV)
Target Date
22 Actual September, 2020 (As per PC-IV). However, the MBP is yet to be handed-
Completion taken over.
Date
23 Project a) To develop biodiversity parks in Kasur, Dera Ghazi Khan,
Objectives Cholistan & Murree
(As per 7th
b) To protect various indigenous/ rare/ vulnerable/ threatened/
Revised PC-
I) endangered species of flora & make stakeholders and
general public familiar with issues relating to biodiversity
c) To attract the fauna (butterflies, birds & honey bees etc.)
through introduction/ conservation of native flora
 d) To serve as a research facility for students and researchers
after completion of these parks
24 Project Development of biodiversity parks in 4 Districts for Conservation,
Scope/ Sustainability, Education, Research, Recreation purposes
Deliverables
B Performance Report
1 Evaluation 1. Mr. Syed Ayaz M. Haider (Deputy Director Project Management)
Team 2. Ms. Ambreen Ghazanfar (Assistant Director Environment)
2 Evaluation
Annex-A
Methodology
3 Project Team 1. Ms. Fauzia Bilqis Malik, Programme Coordinator, IUCN
Interviewed 2. Ms. Mussrat Khan, Programme Officer, IUCN
3. Mr. Hammad Saeed, Manager IKM, IUCN
4. Mr. Anjum Riaz, Deputy Director (TT), EPA Punjab
5. Mr. Muhammad Imran, Assistant Director (Imp.), EPA Punjab
4 Cumulative
Physical 100% (as per PC-IV)
Progress (%)
5 Cumulative 7th Revised
Physical Components of PC-I PC-I Cost Targets Achievements
Progress (Rs. in M.)
(Component Development of
15.125 Complete
wise) Biodiversity Park Kasur
Development of
Biodiversity Park Dera 22.625 Complete
Ghazi Khan
Not Defined in
Development of
PC-I & PC-IV
Biodiversity Park 24.625 Complete
Cholistan, Bahawalpur
Development of
Biodiversity Park 106.333 Complete
Murree
Establishment Charges Rs. 12.903
Rs. 7.8009
12.903 Million (Lump
Million
sum)
6 Cumulative
Financial Rs. 162.51 Million
utilization
7 Cumulative Components of
PC-I Cost Expenditure %age of PC-I
Financial PC-I
Progress Development of
(Component Biodiversity
wise) as per Park at Kasur 15.125 15.125 100%
PC-IV through District
Govt.
Development of
Biodiversity
Park at Dera
22.625 22.625 100%
Ghazi Khan
through District
Government
Development of
24.625 24.625 100%
Biodiversity
 Park at
Cholistan
through
Cholistan
Development
Authority,
Bahawalpur
Development of
Biodiversity
106.333 89.443 84%
Park at Murree
through IUCN
Salary of
Project Staff,
POL,
12.903 7.8809 61%
Stationery,
Advertisement,
etc.
TOTAL 181.611 159.6989 88%
8 Cumulative Years
Phasing of
Allocations Releases Utilization
Financial PC-I
Progress 2008-09 30.000 175.2 30.099 30.098
(Year wise) 2009-10 76.077 75.000 75.000 74.96
as per PC-IV 2010-11 21.706 21.87 21.87 21.846
2011-12 6.706 8.45 8.450 8.406
2012-13 4.10 2.08 2.079 2.0799
2013-14 12.60 12.55 12.55 12.146
2014-15 16.182 16.182 16.182 12.934
2015-16 0.000 Scheme was not reflected in ADP 2015-16
2016-17 17.000 17.00 17.000 0.000
2017-18 Gestation 9 9.000 0.037
2018-19 period of 7th 19.111 0.000 0.000
revised PC-I
was up to 30-
06-2017.
Allocation
was made in
ADP but
issue of
payments to
IUCN could
2019-20 19.111 0.000 0.000
not be
resolved due
to building
issues of
parks and
therefore no
payment was
made to
IUCN.
TOTAL 184.371 375.554 192.23 162.5069
9 Objectives Objectives KPIs Assessment
Indicators for To develop Partially Achieved
Evaluation biodiversity 1. Kasur Biodiversity Park
Not Defined in PC-I
has been developed over
parks in Kasur, & PC-IV
an area of 28 acres by the
Dera Ghazi expenditure of Rs. 15.125
Khan, Cholistan million during FYs. 2008-
& Murree 10 through District
Government Kasur. Now,
it is being maintained by
Municipal Corporation
Kasur & Forest
Department. About 7000
plants of various species
were planted for nature
conservation.
2. DG Khan Biodiversity
Park has been
established over an area
of 14 acres with Rs.
22.625 million during
FYs. 2008-12 through
concerned District
Government. Now, it is
being maintained by PHA
DG Khan.
3. Cholistan Biodiversity
Park has been developed
by Cholistan
Development Authority
over an area of 87 acres
with the amount of Rs.
24.625 million during
FYs. 2008-13. It is now
being maintained by
Cholistan Institute of
Desert Study (CID) of
Islamia University of
Bahawalpur.
4. The biodiversity park in
Murree has been
developed by IUCN over
an area of 40 acres with
facilities including
entrance block, cafeteria
block, bridges & culverts,
pathway, parking, signs &
furniture. However, the
built infrastructure has
structural issues as
mentioned in
Observations section.
Further, the handing-
taking over of the MBP is
yet due.
To protect Partially Achieved
various • The MBP has
been fenced to
indigenous/
avoid trespassing
rare/ vulnerable/ in order to protect
threatened/ indigenous floral
endangered species. Only,
one watchman
species of flora
has been deputed
& make at the site by
stakeholders IUCN which is
and general insufficient for the
said purpose and
public familiar
it was observed
with issues during the site
relating to visit that the fence
biodiversity was damaged at a
portion of
cafeteria block
building.
• No information
regarding
plantation of
indigenous as
well as rare
species and
survival status
was shared with
the Evaluation
team.
• No information
regarding training
pertaining to
biodiversity
conservation to
concerned
stakeholders was
shared.
• No information
boards for public
awareness
apropos of
biodiversity
conservation
were pasted
around the park
area.
To attract the Not Achieved
fauna Only a baseline report
regarding faunal species
(butterflies,
in MBP was prepared
birds & honey after site survey and
bees etc. ) shared with the team.
through However, there is no
information w.r.t trend in
introduction/
faunal flourishment after
conservation of interventions.
native flora
 To serve as a Not Achieved
research facility The following material
regarding research has
for students and
been published by IUCN:
researchers • Baseline Report
after completion on Flora
of these parks • Baseline Report
on Fauna
• Baseline Report
on Entomofauna
• Baseline Report
on Linkages of
Floral Biodiversity
& Ecosystem
• Biodiversity Atlas
of the MBP
• Baseline Report
on Socio-
Economic Survey
of MBP
• Environmental
Impact
Assessment
Study of MBP
The site would serve the
purpose after becoming
operational/ functional.
10 Overall
Grading/ On the basis of Evaluation Rating Index (Annex-B), the overall grading /
Performance performance of the project amounts to 29.1 ~ 29, i.e., Not Successful
of the Project
11 Major Issues 1. Serious structural cracks in building of MBP
2. Delay in handing & taking-over of MBP to frequent change of EPD
Management
3. Unsettled outstanding liabilities issues with IUCN.
12 Major • Contractual issues with the executors and client.
Reasons for
delay
13 Analysis/ 1. The instant project was approved by DDSC in its meeting held on
Findings/ 30-01-2009 at a cost of Rs. 184.5 Million with an implementation
Observations period of 36 Months. The establishment of biodiversity parks in
12 major districts of Punjab at the cost of Rs. 14.625 Million per
park was proposed in original PC-I. However, only 4 districts
including Kasur, DG Khan, Cholistan & Murree could acquire the
land for establishment of the parks. Subsequently, the scope was
reduced to 04 parks in the aforementioned scheme. Three parks
except Muree, were completed in 2013 but the scheme remained
under execution for the completion of MBP which is facing
multiple issues w.r.t execution. Therefore, the scheme has faced
an inordinate time and cost overrun.
2. EPD Punjab hired the consultancy services of IUCN for the
development of MBP on 22-03-2010 at an estimated cost of Rs.
80 Million for the execution period of 27 months ending on 30-6-
2012. However, during the implementation, the scope has been
changed with due consultation of EPD authorities. Therefore, the
cost of agreement increased from Rs. 80 Million to Rs. 92.98
Million. Subsequently, the services of Engineering Consultancy
Services Punjab (ECSP) has been engaged for Third Party
Evaluation (TPE) of the project for the verification of the physical
work and to make the payment to the consultant as per the
Addendum to contract agreement signed between IUCN & EPD.
The final report of TPE was submitted by ECSP on 22-01-2015
with some suggestions regarding rectifications/ improvements
required from IUCN (Annex-C). It was also mentioned in the
report that the geo-technical investigations should be conducted
and certificates of slope stability along with complete set of as-
built drawings be acquired from IUCN for verification. Therefore,
7th revised PC-I of the scheme was approved by DDSC in 14-03-
2017 for the inclusion of following scope:
a. Geological and Geotechnical studies for the structures in
MBP. Tentative cost for the studies is Rs. 3.50 million.
b. If the geological / geotechnical studies yield a favourable
result, then structural stability analysis of the structures
and remedial measures, if required. Tentative cost for this
purpose is Rs. 4.00 million.
c. Verification of as-built drawings by a third party consultant
be carried out. Tentative cost for this is Rs. 1.00 million.
d. Remedial measures as per recommendations of the
studies / payment to IUCN. The cost for this is Rs. 8.40
million.
But the scope mentioned in 7th revised PC-I couldn’t be executed
and issues remained unsolved. Therefore, some vital
components such as studies regarding structural stability of the
building and necessary rectifications/ remedial measures as per
the recommendations of TPE could not be carried out.
3. EPD Punjab has made payments to the tune of Rs. 89.433 Million
to IUCN in 5 installments. However, as per the agreement signed
between EPD and IUCN on 19-02-2015 that the 6th and final
installment amounting to Rs. 2.359 Million to IUCN will be made
after provision of required documents and making
recommendations as pointed out in the ECSP’s TPE Report
before handing over the project to EPD accordingly. During
meeting with project authorities at the project site, it was informed
that some additional scope has been carried out by IUCN without
taking the formal approval from the client. Consequently, the
IUCN has claimed the payment of Rs. 16.022 Million as their
 outstanding liabilities. Therefore, the contractual issues between
IUCN and EPD remained unresolved.
4. As per PC-IV, the date of commencement was July, 2008,
whereas the admin approval of original PC-I was issued on 10-
02-2009, which shows that the activities of the project were
started/ commenced before getting the formal approval.
5. According to PC-IV, the project latest expenditure is Rs. 162.5
Million against the 7th revised cost of Rs. 181.611 Million, which
shows 89% financial progress. Sponsors have submitted the PC-
IV with the proposal to cap the project, therefore, the issue
regarding outstanding liabilities of the IUCN is remained
unaddressed.
6. The indigenous and rare floral species on demarked sections of
MBP have to be inducted to execute the objective No. 02 of PC-I
(7th revised). However, PC-IV is silent about interventions taken
in this regard.
7. In compliance of objective No. 03 of PC-I (7th revised), IUCN
hasn’t prepared any research material/ study regarding time-
based status of native / indigenous fauna flourished by ecosystem
linkages after conservation practices executed as a result of MBP
development.
8. The seepage issue on walls and roof of entrance block and
cafeteria block buildings was predominant. (Figures: 2 & 7-9)
9. There were some serious structural cracks in column & beam of
section of entrance block which may lead to building damage in
the future. (Figures: 10-12)
10. During the inspection, it was observed that the fencing of MBP
was found damaged at the site of cafeteria block building (Figure:
4) which is an indication of trespassing by the local villagers due
to poor watch & ward condition. It may eventually in turn result in
disturbing the ecosystem of MBP
11. In compliance of objective No. 02 stated in 7th revised PC-I, no
awareness campaign or related activity was conducted by IUCN
for awareness of local residents/ public regarding biodiversity
conservation and its related issues.
12. It was mentioned in the objectives of the project that “the facility
in each district will contribute towards the educating of students
and researchers in the field of biodiversity, botany and zoology”,
however, due to non-operationalization of the park till date, the
said objective could not be achieved.
13. Since the building could not be handed over to the sponsoring
department i.e., EPD, the claims of the consultant/ executors are
keeping on increasing. It is worth mentioning here that in DDSC
dated 25-6-2020 the scheme was capped with an observation
that EPD will hold meeting with all stakeholders for handing it over
for regular operation of the park. In other meeting held in P&D the
forest department expressed their interest in taking over the park
 after rectification with their own resources. However, the issue
regarding handing-taking over the park is yet to be resolved.
14. The Development of parks at Kasur, DG Khan & Bahawalpur
have been carried out at the cost of Rs. 15.125 M, 22.625 M &
24.625 M respectively, whereas the Murree Park has been
developed at a cost of Rs. 106.33 M, which shows the huge
financial overrun owing to time overrun and mismanagement in
specific component. Moreover, the anticipated revenue after
operationalization of park has also not been generated which
further caused the loss to public exchequer due to prolonged
execution of the park.
15. The schedule of payment to the consultant as agreed in the
agreement was very vague and linked with the time-lapse rather
than the deliverables. Moreover, the exact estimation of the
different components included in scope of work for consultancy
services were also missing in the contract agreement. Therefore,
the ambiguity in contract agreement led towards the
mismanagement, non-coordination & confusion between the
client and consultant.
16. It was mentioned in the contract agreement under the clause
2.2(e) that the consultant will arrange training for capacity building
of concerned district governments / executing agency and EPA
for successful implementation, operation & maintenance of the
Biodiversity parks. However, the progress on this component
hasn’t been shared with the evaluation team.
Recommend 1. The Sponsoring department may carry out the inquiry regarding
ations poor quality of work, designing of structures without proper geo-
technical investigations and execution of additional scope without
taking the prior formal approval from the client. Due cognizance
be ensured before capping the project.
2. Sponsors may take all measures to hand/take over the building
from the executor at the earliest to avoid further loss. In this
regard it is further recommended that structurally dangerous
building be cordoned off for further use and other research related
component of the project be made functional.
3. Since, Biodiversity is not the forte of EPD and has no capacity &
past experience to maintain and operationalize the biodiversity
parks, therefore, it is recommended that potential users and
options may be explored for optimal utilization of the facility for
educational/ research, biodiversity and recreational purposes.
4. Sponsors may engage the any specialized government agency
or consultant to evaluate the existing structure and to estimate
the cost of rehabilitation and rectifications of building portion and
a new scheme may be prepared to place before the competent
forum for consideration.
5. The cogent agreements with consultants or contractors with clear
TORs / deliverables and payment mechanism in lines with the
 guidelines issued by Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC) be
ensured in future agreements to avoid such happenings.
6. The executing agency, i.e., EPA may seek the progress report
from the consultant against the each TOR as mentioned in the
contract agreement and shared with this office of DGM&E.
7. The liabilities issues with the IUCN in the context of MBP be
settled in the light of scope of agreement after physical verification
by EPD authorities.
C Check List
1 Contractor/ Contractor/ Work
Work Order Completion Description of
Supplier Supplier Order
Date Period Work
Name Cost

2 Consultant Consultant Agreeme Agreement Completion Description of

Name nt Cost Date Period Work
Development of
Not Yet Murree
IUCN Rs. 89 M 22-03-2010
Completed Biodiversity
Park
3 Extensions/ Date Period (Months/ Days)
Periods/ 10-02-2009 to 31-03-2010 01 Year 01 Month 21 Days
Cost/ 31-03-2010 to 24-12-2011 01 Year 08 Months 24 Days
Approving 24-12-2011 to 14-06-2013 01 Year 05 Months 21 days
Forum/ Date 14-06-2013 to 19-11-2013 05 Months 05 days
19-11-2013 to 06-03-2014 06 Months 15 Days
06-03-2014 to 01-12-2014 05 Months 28 Days
01-12-2014 to 31-03-2015 3 Months 30 Days
15-03-2017 to 30-06-2017 3 Months 15 Days
4 Time Overrun 09 Years 03 Months
(Quantifiable
terms)

5 Cost Overrun The cost remained same however, the scope has been reduced.
(Quantifiable
terms)
6 No. of 1st Revision: Mar-2010
Revisions of 2nd Revision: Dec-2011
PC-Is
3 Revision:
rd
June-2013
4th Revision: Nov-2013
5th Revision: Mar-2014
6 Revision:
th
Dec-2014
7 Revision:
th
Mar-2017
7 Reasons of
Reasons for 1st Revision (March, 2010)
Revisions of
PC-Is Estimated Cost (Revised) Rs. 181.489 million
• To set up Biodiversity Park in Murree under EPD Development
Scheme, “Development of Biodiversity Park in collaboration with
City District Government, District Government and Business
Communities” with CM approval.
 • To acquire consultancy services of IUCN, Pakistan for the
specialized task of designing, landscaping and physical
execution till the completion of Biodiversity Park in Tehsil Murree
by EPD with CM approval. Terms of References (TORs)
approved by the competent authority in this regard.
• To provide additional amount to Cholistan Development
Authority for quantum of work and acquiring of addition land for
biodiversity park in Cholistan, without increasing the cost of
original approved PC-I.
• Reduction in scope of work to 4 Districts (Kasur, Murree, DG
Khan & Cholistan) and an amount of Rs. 40.00 Million allocated
for any other district which may come up during the project
execution
Reasons for 2nd Revision (November, 2011)
Estimated Cost (Revised) Rs. 181.489 million
• To provide an additional allocation of Rs. 5 million to District
Government D.G Khan to acquire an additional stretch of land
available adjacent to the biodiversity park under development
Reasons for 3rd Revision(May, 2013)
Estimated Cost (Revised) Rs. 148.589 Million
• To rationalize the project objectives in the light of funds
earmarked, actual work done and to corroborate activities
undertaken in line with the concept of biodiversity parks
Reasons for 4th Revision (October, 2013)
Estimated Cost (Revised) Rs. 149.939 million
• To extend the in gestation period for rationalizing objectives/
scope of work and for completing deficient work particularly at
Biodiversity Park Murree and making payments as per revised
scope/ work done accordingly in the light of 50th Evaluation
Committee meeting held on 02.07.2013 under the Chairmanship
of DG(M&E), P&D Department
Reasons for 5th Revision (February, 2014)
Estimated Cost (Revised) Rs. 167.371 Million
• To incorporate revised scope of work and cost
• Provision of 3rd party evaluation for approval by the DDSC
• Extension in the gestation period of the scheme would be
extended till 30-09-2014
Reasons for 6th Revision (November, 2014)
Estimated Cost (Revised) Rs. 167.371 Million
Engineering Consultancy Services Punjab (ECSP) was selected to
conduct third party evaluation and award of contract was signed between
EPD and ECSP on 21.08.2014. Award of work was issued on 25-08-2014.
A timeline of 24.10.2014 for submission of final report of TPE was given
by ECSP in its inception report. However draft final report was received
on 30-10-2014 which was reviewed. A sixth months’ time was further
 required to effect rectification/ improvements by IUCN where required/ as
suggested in draft final report and to clear liabilities and making balance
payment to IUCN accordingly. Minor changes were required in the
provision of funds under different heads to meet certain requirements
(salaries & others/unforeseen) without making any change/increase in the
total cost of the project. DDSC meeting held on 01-12-2014 under the
chairmanship of Secretary, EPD approved the 6th revision of PC-I.
Reasons for 7th Revision (June, 2017)
Estimated Cost (Revised) Rs. 181.611 Million.
• Hiring of consultancy services for the following studies at MBP:
(i) Geological and Geotechnical studies for the structures in
Muree Biodiversity Park. Tentative cost for the studies is
Rs. 3.50 million.
(ii) If the geological / geotechnical studies yield a favourable
result, then structural stability analysis of the structures
and remedial measures, if required. Tentative cost for this
purpose is Rs. 4.00 million.
(iii) Verification of as-built drawings by a third party consultant
be carried out. Tentative cost for this is Rs. 1.00 million.
(iv) Remedial measures as per recommendations of the
studies / payment to IUCN. The cost for this is Rs. 8.40
million.

The gestation Period of 7th revised PC-I was up to June-2018 that has
expired on 30.06.2018.
There has been a delay due to the hiring process of Consultancy Services
for geological and geotechnical studies. The studies approved in 7th
revised PC-I could not be started because negotiation after opening of
technical and financial bids were underway, hence the project cannot be
accomplished within FY 2017-18.
8 Quality of Not up to the mark (Structural cracks in main entrance building)
Work
9 Internal It was reported that the project was monitored by the officers of EPD.
Monitored by However, no monitoring report in this regard was provided.
Executing
Agency
10 Coordination Yes
among
stakeholders
11 Data
Availability to Complete project data was not provided.
Evaluator
12 Physical
Condition of
Non-operational
Service
facility
13 Human
Since the project activities have been closed in 2018 there the human
Resource
resource engaged in this project have been laid off.
Availability
14 Deviation
from scope of Yes
Work, if any
15 Change in
Management
Yes
during
Execution
16 O&M Cost The operation & maintenance cost of MBP will be borne by the agency/
department/ organization/ business community to which O&M job will be
assigned by the competent authority after project is completed (as per 7th
revised PC-I).
Forest Department, Government of the Punjab has expressed willingness
to take over the Biodiversity Park Murree for O&M through their own
resources (as per PC-IV).
17 SNE
No
18 Beneficiary
Not Carried out
Analysis
19 Economic
Not carried out.
Analysis
20 Google Pro
Map

21 Site Pictures Annex-D

ANNEX-A Methodology
 ANNEX-B Evaluation Rating Index

EVALUATION RATING INDEX

Sr. Points
Phase Criteria Maximum Point
No Obtained
Feasibility Study (with respect to threshold of cost of Project)
P1.1 i Yes 5
N/A
ii No 0
Stakeholders involvement in preparation of PC-I
P1.2 i Yes 5 5
ii No 0
Baseline Data in PC-I
P1.3 i Yes 5
ii No 0 0
Planning Scope Commensurate with Objectives
i Completely matched 5
P1.4
ii Partially matched 3 3
iii Do not Match 0
Result Based Monitoring Framework
P1.5 i Yes 5
ii No 0 0
Project Justification/ Need's Assessment
P1.6 i Provided 5 5
ii Not Provided 0
Obtained Points of Planning = 13
Weightage
((Points Obtained/Total Points of Indicators) x
A of P1 10.4
100)*0.2
indicators

Formulation of Project Team and Organization (PMU, PIU, PSU)

P2.1 i Formulated 5 5
ii Not Formulated 0
Financial Performance (Releases vs. Expenditure Analysis)
i Exellent (100%) 5
Execution ii Very Good (>95%) 4
P2.2 iii Good (90% to 95%) 3
Satisfactory (85% to
iv 2 2
90%)
Average (80% to
v 1
85%)
 vi Poor (<80%) 0
Physical Progress
i Exellent (100%) 5
ii Very Good (>90%) 4
P2.3 iii Good (80-90%) 3
iv Satisfactory (70-80%) 2
v Average (60-70%) 1 1
vi Poor (<60%) 0
Revisions of PC-I
i No Revision 5
P2.4 ii One Revision 3
iii Two Revision 2
iv Three or more Revision 1 1
Availability of Documents w.r.t (Hiring, Procurement, Trainings,
tenders & Bidding etc.)
P2.5 i Provided 5
ii Partially Provide 3 3
iii Not Provided 0
Time and Cost Overrun
No time and Cost
i 5
overrun
6 Months Time overrun
ii or/ and 5% cost 4
overrun
9 Months Time overrun
P2.6 iii or/ and 10% cost 3
overrun
12 Months Time
iv overrun or/ and 20% 2
cost overrun
18 Months Time
v overrun or/ and 30% 0 0
cost overrun
Obtained Points of Execution= 12
Weightage
((Points Obtained/Total Points of Indicators) x
B of P2 12
100)*0.3
indicators
PC-IV Submission
Within One Month of
ii 5
Project Closure
Closure &
P3.1 After Two Month of
Results iii 3
Project Closure
After Four Month of
iv 2
Project Closure
 After Six Month of
v 1
Project Closure
After Nine Month of
vi 0 0
Project Closure
Objectives Achievement
i All Achieved 10
ii 90% Achieved 7
P3.2 iii 80% Achieved 5
iv 70% Achieved 3
v 60% Achieved 1 1
vi < 50% Achieved 0
Data Availability & Response of Project authorities
i Provided 5
P3.3
ii Partially Provided 3 3
iii Not Provided 0
Beneficiaries Assessment
i Excellent 5
ii Very Good 4
P3.4 iii Good 3 N/A
iv Satisfactory 2
v Average 1
vi Poor 0
Availability of Quality Control Data
P3.5 i Yes 5
ii No 0 0
Sustainability Plan in PC-I
P3.6 i Provided 5
ii Not Provided 0 0
Obtained Points of Closure & Results= 4
Weightage
((Points Obtained/ Total Points of Indicators) x
C of P3
100)*0.5 1
6.7
indicators

1 If any indicator from Planning Phase, Execution Phase, or Closure Phase is not applicable on project evaluation then that
indicator along with the assigned weightage shall not be included in the overall grading of that phase. The overall grading
will be made on the basis of indicators that are applicable for project evaluation.
Planning 20%, Execution 30%, Closure & Results 50%

Total (A+B+C) 29.1 ~ 29

Above 70 Successful
Partially
Overall Project 35-70
Successful
Grading
Not
Below 35
Successful
ANNEX-C Findings of ECSP Report
 ANNEX-D Site Visit Pictures

Figure 1: Discussion with Project Figure 2: Dampness / Seepage on Exterior

Stakeholders Side of Main Building

Figure 3: View of Crack along Wall Figure 4: Damaged Section of Park Fencing

Figure 5: Damaged Ceiling Figure 6: Broken Glass of Window

Figure 7: Damaged / Corroded DB due to Figure 8: Dampness/ Seepage on Roof
Dampness on Wall

Figure 9: Damped Roof & Walls Figure 10: Cracks along Column & Beam of
Entrance Block Building

Figure 11: Damaged Section of Entrance Figure 12: Crack along Ground / Foundation
Block Building Beam and Damaged Walkway/ Track
©
Directorate General of Monitoring and Evaluation (ISO: 9001/2015), Planning & Development
Board, Government of Punjab.
4th & 5th Floor, 65- Trade Centre Block, Ayub Chowk, Johar Town, Lahore
042-99233177-91, [email protected]
Soft copy of the report may be downloaded from www.dgmepunjab.gov.pk