Sub-Project Sustainability Evaluation Tool (SET) : I. SP Utilization
Sub-Project Sustainability Evaluation Tool (SET) : I. SP Utilization
Sub-Project Sustainability Evaluation Tool (SET) : I. SP Utilization
Date of Completion:
Actual Construction cost:
KALAHI GRANT:
LCC:
Date Conducted:
Degree of
Responsiveness2
I. SP UTILIZATION
1) Number of beneficiaries
Type of
Beneficiaries
Households (total)
Families (total)3
Planned
Actual
Explanation of Variance
4Ps HHs
4Ps Families
IP HHs
IP Families
2) Is there an instance where any particular person/HH/group is constrained or
prevented from using the facility4? ___ Yes ____ No
What are these instances?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
What is the decision of the O&M group to address these issue/s?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
3) List down the top three benefits derived from the completed project
____________________________________________
_____
____________________________________________
_____
____________________________________________
_____
From AIP or O&M Group Work and Financial Plan approved by General Assembly
This is the perceived/observed/experienced functionality or quality of indicators, with 5 being the highest and 1
lowest.
3
Data required by OSEC. For succeeding subprojects, total number of families that will benefit from the proposed
subproject should also be part of the project proposal/feasibility study.
4
Example: A vehicle exceeding load limit /capacity was prohibited to traverse the road
2
Version 10/8/2013
Degree of
Responsiveness
I. SP UTILIZATION
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
OVERALL NUMERICAL RATING (SP Utilization 15%)
Key Areas
Yes
or
No
Degree of
Responsiveness /
Impact
Remarks 5
Comment on the responsiveness and overall quality of support provided by the MLGU and BLGU. Include other
observations as maybe appropriate.
Key Areas
1. O&M organization formed and registered
and/or accredited
For Yes answer, the following should be
met:
Record/minutes of formation and BA
approval
List of Officers and members
o Record of election/installation
o Posted in the office
Proof/copy of registration or accreditation
Constitution and By-Laws duly approved
by General Assembly
2. O&M Group is functional
Yes
or
No
Degree of
Responsiveness /
Impact
Version 10/8/2013
Remarks
Key Areas
Yes
or
No
Degree of
Responsiveness /
Impact
Version 10/8/2013
Remarks
Equipment
Supplies
V. PHYSICAL/TECHNICAL
A. O&M PLAN, TOOLS & EQUIPMENT
RATING
REMARKS
Version 10/8/2013
1) O&M Plan Implementation
Implementation of planned
activities
Activities conducted as scheduled
Irrigators Association maintains the
irrigation system
2) Maintenance Tools/equipment
Proof of purchase/ownership/rental/
access from other sources (tools
available)
Tools are functional and on-site
B. SUB-PROJECT STRUCTURES
1) GRAVELED OR EARTH ROAD
SURFACE
Presence of potholes
Canals on road carriage way
Road blocks
2) SIDE DITCHES/CANAL
Silted
Too much scouring
3) ROAD SHOULDER
Overgrown vegetation
Stockpiles & other obstruction
Washed-out
No enough protection
4) CROSS DRAINS
Inlet/outlet silted
Crack on Headwalls
Crack on Wingwalls
5) CONCRETE PAVEMENT
Cracks
Scaling
Scouring or settlement of base
6) SLOPE PROTECTION
Cracks
Settlement
7) SAFETY SIGNS
Road Signs available
Condition of Signage
8) SIGN BOARDS
Visibility of signboard-Readable Policies
Condition of Signboard
FINAL RATING
OVER-ALL FINDINGS:
Numerical Rating
Adjectival Rating
Version 10/8/2013
1. Functionality
In summary, the subproject physical status is (please check):
Well-maintained/in good condition
Needs minor repairs
Needs major repairs
Structure not functional
In terms of services provided, the subproject:
Provides services beyond target beneficiaries
Serves target beneficiaries
Serves less than the target beneficiaries
Provides no benefits
2. Sustainability
The following components/areas are properly attended to:
________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Actions Taken/Recommendations
1.
2.
3.
4.
Multi-Stakeholders Inspectorate Team Members (MSIT)
____________________________________
O&M Organization Representative
_________________________________
BLGU Representative
____________________________________
MIAC Representative
_________________________________
SB Representative
____________________________________
ACT Representative
_________________________________
Mayors Office Representative
____________________________________
RPMT Representative (if available)
_________________________________
MSIT Team Leader (MPDC/ME)
____________________________________
NPMO Representative (if available)
_________________________________
Version 10/8/2013
____________________________________
_________________________________