Project: Gimbi - Guye - Alge - Metu Road Project, Lot 1: Gimbi – Km 70+000

Client: Ethiopian Road Administration (ERA)

Consultant: SG Consulting Engineers P.L.C.
Contractor: Diriba Defersha General Contractor

Variation Order No. 01

(Variation Works under Alternative-02 (starts at Km 47+800 from the existing and heads
to Nolekaba woreda administration office and turns left from Masterplan of NoleKaba
Town at Km 48+400)

This Variation order is to be issued pursuant to Sub-Clause 14.1 of the General Condition of
Contract.

Correspondences

 DD/39950/22 dated November 22, 2022 (from Contractor to Employer’s Representative)

 DD/3930/22 dated September 14, 2022 (from Contractor to Employer’s Representative)
Introduction

As it is known the Contract agreement is signed between Ethiopian Roads

Administration and Diriba Defersha General Contractor for the above referred project.

Pursuant to the Employers Requirement’s 6.3.2 under route selection the contractor
shall present at least three alternative options to select the route. In relation, Nolekaba
had raised issues on the proposed route though the routes follow the Master Plan of
their respective towns. Frequent meetings has been made to entertain the community
and administrators idea in the presence of the Employers Representative.

As the community and Town Administration of NoleKaba town insisted on their

proposed route, three possible alternatives including the existing route, which follows
the Master Plan of the town, with their respective advantages and disadvantages.

In line with this requirement and the findings of the desk study and the site
reconnaissance study, the three Alternatives has been described below: -.

1
Alternative 1: -This section starts at Km 47+800 from the existing and extends to
Kiltutobe Kebele traversing through downhill side of Nolekaba Town. The route has
approximate length of 3.54 km and entirely follows the existing and generally
characterized by relatively continuous sharp curves and steep gradients. Due to the
settlement pattern of the community and topographical constriction, it is difficult to
modify the route as it will have adverse impact on the community where the modification
and shifting of the alignment will affect the built-up areas.
Alternative 2: - This section starts at Km 47+800 from the existing and heads to
Nolekaba woreda administration office and turns left from Masterplan of NoleKaba
Town at Km 48+400. This Alternative after leaving the settlement area at Km 49+400 it
traverses through coffee plantation for larger section of it. The route has approximate
length of 4.47 km and generally characterized by relatively continuous gentle curves
and localized steep gradients. The Nolekaba Community, Town Municipality and
Woreda Administration strongly urges the alignment to follow this Alternative though the
Alternative misses both the Masterplan of Nolekaba town and control points of the
Nolekaba town end and Kiltutobe kebele start.

Alternative 3: -This Alternative starts at Km 47+800 turns right and heads down hill
side of NoleKaba Town and meets the existing at Km 48+900. The route then follows
the existing and extends to Kiltutobe kebele. The route is characterize by relatively
gentle curves though localized sharp curves prevail around Km 48+900. The route has
approximate length of 3.00 km.

Consultation at Nole Keba Woreda

2
The consultant team briefed representatives of local administration and the community in the
project area about the alternative routes, the project objectives, and the comparative advantages
and disadvantages of the four alternative routes from engineering, social, environmental,
economic, strategic and administrative perspectives. The following representatives from different
sectorial offices of the Woreda attended the consultation.
 Head of Woreda Administration
 Head of Woreda Roads Authority
 Head of Woreda Investment Office
 Head of Woreda Water Resource Office
 Head of Woreda Agriculture and Natural Resource Office
 Head of Woreda Climate Change and Forest Protection
 Head of Woreda Women, Youth and Children Affairs Office
 Head of Woreda Administration Office
 Head of Woreda Roads Authority
 Head of Woreda Finance and Economic Development Office
 Head of Woreda Land Use Office
 Head of Woreda Culture and Tourism
 Head of Woreda Work and Public affair Development
 Head of Bube Town
The representatives were very pleased about the project and they indicated that the project road
will play a prominent role for the development of the woreda and will accelerate the socio-
economic development of the area. They unanimously selected the existing route (Route
Alternative-I) substantiating by the following justifications:
 It has less negative impacts on vegetation, farm land, residential and business houses
unlike the other two alternative routes;
 It enhances the social service institutions and administrative services that are located
along the road corridor;
 It has high potential for agro-industry investment that in turn plays a considerable role for
the economic development and reduction of poverty in the project area;
 It can create easier transportation accessibility for wider population of the woreda and
neighbouring woredas;
 It will promote investment in the area and create better market link in the woreda
including the neighbouring woredas and the kebeles traversed;
 It traverses through an area that has high agricultural development potential that can
improve production and productivity;
 It solves accessibility problem of the communities along the route thereby reducing travel
time and transport cost;

3
  It facilitates development of other infrastructure in the area like water supply, electric
power and telecommunication supplies;
All the above four route alternatives contribute to improvement of the standard of living of the
local community and impact favorably on women and other vulnerable social groups living in
the project area. However, Route Alternative-1 is selected by the Woreda.
Environmental Appraisal of the Route Alternatives

General
The essence of any Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process is to ensure
informed decision-making and environmental accountability, and to assist in achieving
environmentally sound and sustainable development. For this purpose, an
environmental analysis and appraisal have been conducted on potential alternative
routes of the project road.
The scope of this environmental analysis and appraisal for the Gimbi-Guye-Alge-Metu
Road Project, Lot 1: Gimbi-Km 70+000 Road Project at this stage is therefore to
evaluate and rank identified route options (route alternatives) from environment and
social perspective. The findings from this study will be coupled with the other evaluation
criterion in order to select the best route alignment among the proposed alternatives for
Nolekaba town.

Appraisal of Bio-Physical Environmental Impacts

As per the ERA route selection manual put in place recently (ERA Route Selection
Manual, 2013), the environmentally critical areas (ECA), the corresponding ECA
number and ECA values as well as its relevance to the case in point is given in the table
below (refer to Table 8.4 of the Route Selection Manual for more details). These are few
but critical parameters used to assess and compare alternative route options with
respect to environmental issues. ECA number, brief description of environmentally
critical areas that has to be considered during route selection processes as well as the
values given for each ECA is provided in Table below
Table 4.6:1: Environmentally Critical Area Numbers and Values
ECA Environmentally ECA
Remarks
Number Critical Area Value
National Parks,
Primary Forests,
Areas of High There is no such areas at the identified
ECA I 5
Biodiversity and alternative routes
Endangered
Species
Recharge Areas for
Aquifers, Protected There is no important aquifer recharge
ECA II 4
Water Bodies and areas.
Wetlands
ECA III Prime Agricultural 3 The project area is good for agricultural

4
 Land farming
The topography of the area is dominantly
mountainous and most of the route
segments traverse through the ridge of a
Areas of High mountain. In addition the project area
Landscape contain superlative natural phenomena or
ECA IV 3
Value/Scientific areas of exceptional natural beauty and
Interest aesthetic importance. The highlands have
also provided the area with spectacular
scenic beauty and stunning views across
the lowland
Since the train of the project road is rolling
and mountainous, construction of the road
Areas Prone to
will cause soil erosion. The routes
ECA V Erosion and 1
traverses through more rugged
Desertification
mountaneous rigde terrain.

ECA/VEC Comparison, Impact Matrix, Environmental Risk Assessment and

Aggregate ECA Risk Numbers

Environmental Impact Matrix:- Environmental risk matrix is a tabular relationship of

the probabilities of occurrence of impacts with the significance of impacts. As can be
seen on the table below, the higher the occurrence of the probability of impacts is the
higher its significance. The results in this table are used to determine the level of
environmental risks associated with each alternative against the corresponding ECA
values (Environmental Critical Areas) or Valued Ecological Components (VEC) as
described on the table below.
The probability of occurrence of impacts for the project at hand will be taken as either
probable or definite and the corresponding significance of impacts is therefore ranging
from very low up to high as shown on the table below

Table 4.1:2: Level of Environmental Risk Matrix

Probability of Significance of Impacts
Impacts Very Low Low Moderate High Very High
Unlikely None None Minimum Moderate High
Probable None Minimum Moderate High Very High
Definite Minimum Moderate High Very High Critical

ECA/VEC Comparison: - Levels of Environmental Risks associated with each ECA for
each route options are provided on the table below. Here probabilities of occurrence of
impacts for the project at hand are assumed as either unlikely or probable or definite as
appropriate.
Environmental Risk Assessment: - From our desk studies, walkover assessments at
site and public consultations as well as subsequent analysis, most of the expected
impacts are local in their level of impacts, short term in their duration, reversible with

5
 proper mitigation measures and non-cumulative. Therefore, the severity or significance
of expected impacts for the proposed routes is ranging from none up to very high
categories as shown on the table below. The impact significance indicated in the Table
is used to calculate the aggregate ECA risk number shown on the table below and
corresponding MCA scores for each alternative routes.
Based on the expected impact significance and probability of occurrence of impacts, the
aggregate impact of the alternative route options on environmentally critical areas
(ECA) is indicated in table below.

Table 4.1:3: Assessment of Impact Significance for the Proposed Alternatives

ECA Alternative Alternative Alternative
Remarks
Type Route I Route II Route III
Here the occurrence of impact is
ECA I None None None assumed as unlikely for all Route
alternatives
Here the occurrence of impact is
ECA II None None None assumed as unlikely for all Route
alternatives
Here the occurrence of impact is
ECA III None moderate None
assumed as probable
Landscape of the project area will
be disturbed in relation to clearing of
the natural vegetation during
ECA IV moderate High moderate construction of the road, hence the
occurrence of impact is assumed as
definite for Route alternatives II, III
Severity of Impacts

and probable for Route alternative-I

Clearing of the natural vegetation
during construction of the road may
initiate desertification and soil
ECA IV moderate High moderate
erosion, hence the occurrence of
impact is assumed as definite for
Route alternatives II, III

Aggregate ECA Risk Numbers: - The levels of Environmental Risk indicated on the
table above are combined with ECA Values on the table below for each route option to
yield a score of Aggregate ECA Risk Number shown on the table below.
The corresponding MCA scores for each route option is also calculation using equations
8-1 indicated in the Route Selection Manual. The equation used to calculate MCA score
is: -

6
 MCA Score = 20 x {[80 – ECA1 - ECA2 - ECA3 - ECA4 - ECA5]/80}
Table 4.1:4: Calculation of Aggregate ECA Risk Numbers

Route alternative I Route alternative II Route alternative III

ECA Number ECA Number ECA Number
Environmental
I II III IV V I II III IV V I II III IV V
Risk

Total

Total

Total
ECA Value ECA Value ECA Value
5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1
Scor
Level
e
None 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Minimum 1 3 3
Moderate 2 4 2 6 6 6 6 4 2 12
High 3 6 3 9
Very High 4
Critical 5
Total 9 15 12

Route Alternative I: MCA Score = 20 (80-9)/80 = 17.75

Route Alternative II: MCA Score = 20 (80-15)/80 = 16.25
Route Alternative III: MCA Score = 20 (80-12)/80 = 17.00
Note that the higher the ECA Risk Number the higher the envisaged impact, and the
least favorable environmentally the route option is. Therefore, Route alternative I is the
best Route for Nolekaba Town

Socio-economic condition of the road project area

Administrative Location
Gimbi-Guye-Alge-Metu Road Project; Lot-1: Gimbi-Km 70 is located in the western part
of the country in Gimibi, Nole Kaba and Haru Woredas of West Wollega Zone, in
Oromiya Regional state. The whole length of the road project is estimated to be around
140kms while Lot 1 stretches from KM 0+000 to KM 70+000 starting from the outskirts
of Gimbi town, which is around 428km away from Addis Ababa along the Addis Ababa-
Nekemte-Assosa road and runs in the south direction throughout its length towards
Metu.
The start of the proposed road project is Gimbi Town (seat of West Wollega Zone as
well as Gimbi Woreda) and traverses through Gimbi, Guye, Nole Kaba and Ula Babu
Towns as well as a number of villages and kebele seats.
Proposed Route Alternatives
Based on the desk study, detailed field survey and Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) of ERA
Route Selection Manual (2013), four alternative routes were proposed and presented to
public consultation consisted of Zone and Woreda and Town government officials,
sector bureaus and community representatives. The identified alternative routes were

7
considered in line with the local future environmental, social and economic development
plans.
Socio-economic Criteria for Route Selection
Socio-economic parameters are identified to compare the three route alternatives. The
selection is based on prevailing socio-economic environment of the road project area,
positive and negative impacts and ERA`s 2013 Route Selection Manual.
Accordingly, the following criteria have been set up and used as a parameter to rank
and select each route according to socio-economic importance. Criteria/indices in this
part of the report are mainly focused on socio-economic issues. The routes are ranked
combining all criteria as follow:
 Size of population served
 Number of kebeles accessed
 Provision of access to schools
 Provision of access to health institutions
 Development Potential
 Potential for public transport uptake
 Displacement Impact
 Community Severance
 Road Importance Given by Local Consultation Process
 Impacts on Natural, Cultural & Historical Heritage and Archaeological Sites
 Road Safety
 Air/WaterPollution

Ranking of the Route Comparison

Based on the above criteria, the following ranking is prepared.
Table 5.2:5: Ranking of the Route Comparison

Socio-Economic and Socio- Point Route Route Route

Cultural Issues Alternative-I Alternative-II Alternative-III
Value Score Value Score Value Score
Community Access 3 H 3 H 3 H 2
Development Potential 3 H 2 H 3 H 2
Public Transport uptake 4 H 4 M 4 M 3
Resettlement Impact 4 M 2 M 2 H 3
Community Severance 2 M 2 M 2 M 2
Impact on Cultural Heritage 4 L 4 L 4 L 4
Road Safety 3 M 1 H 3 H 3
Pollution 2 L 2 L 2 L 2

8
Total 25 20 23 21
Rank 3 1 2

NB: H= High, M= Moderate L= Low

The ranking calculation was done based on ERA`s proposed Multi-criteria Analysis in
Route Selection Manual, 2013 on page 10-12.

Recommendation
As indicated in the above Table Alternative Route-II has got relatively the highest
score and selected as the best preferred route and recommended for further detail
study

Engineering Assessment

Geometric Assessment
General
Geometric design is the process whereby the layout of the road and the dimensions of a
highway are designed with the objective of forming or shaping the facility to suite
 The characteristics and behavior of drivers, vehicles, traffic, pedestrians
and other road users
 The selected Design Speed and function of the road
 The terrain conditions
 The built and natural environment

Therefore, geometric design mainly deals with features of location, horizontal and
vertical alignment, cross section.
1.1.1 Road Functional Classification

9
Road function is basically related to the most common types and purposes of travel, trip
and character of service the roads provide. The character of service can broadly be
understood as Mobility, Access and a mixture of Mobility and Access.
ERA road functional classification manual classifies a road by the Class of Traffic
Generating Areas (TGAs) they connect. The Manual identifies five Traffic generating
areas from I to IV with the exception of Addis Ababa which is class 0. It also
recommends five road classes as follows;
 Trunk Roads
 Link Roads
 Main Access Roads
 Collector Roads
 Feeder Roads
Considering the significance of the road in the overall road network, the project road is
functionally classified as Link Road. Such roads are expected to provide accessibility to
the major road users within the project corridor.
Road Design Standards
As explained in Chapter 1 of this report, the AADT of the route options at the mid-year
of the design period for both routes is provided in chapter 6 and subsequently are
classified to have design class of DC4 according to ERA Geometric design manual,
2013. The details of the design parameters for the project are provided in chapter 1.
The details of the geometric parameters for the project road and their corresponding
design standards are provided in chapter 1.

Routes Geometric Length

Length of each route has been preliminary estimated based on the results of the
preliminary geometric design. The horizontal and vertical alignments of the routes have
been formulated based on 12.5m resolution digital elevation model and 50,000 scale
topographic map interpretation.

Table 6.1:6: Routes Estimated geometric length

Route Estimated
Section Geometric Remark
Alternative Length, Km
Alternative-1 3.54 Existing Route
Alternative-2 4.47 Community Proposed Route
Alternative-3 3.00 Contractor Proposed Route

Table 6.1:7: Comparison of the Alternatives based on

Length
Secondary Max Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Criteria Scor Evaluatio Scor Evaluati Scor Evaluati Scor

10
 n e on e on e
e
Road 6 3.54 5.1 4.47 4 3.00 6
Length
Total Score 5.1 4 6
(Km)

Terrain Classification
Terrain classification is important factor that greatly affects the selection of design
standards. Drivers’ behavior and selection of speed is directly affected by the terrain in
which the vehicle traverses through. In addition, terrain of surrounding area also affects
the construction, vehicle operation and maintenance cost of road projects.
ERA Geometric Design manual 2013 classifies terrain in to four classes based on the
traverse perpendicular slope of the ground as indicated in Table 5-1 below.

Table 6.1:8: Summary of Terrain Classification of Alternatives

Alternative-1 Alternative-2 Alternative-3
No. Terrain

1 Flat 0% 0% 0%
2 Rolling 89% 89% 87%
3 Mountainous 11% 11% 13%
Total 100% 100% 100%

Table 6.1:9Comparison of the Alternatives based on Terrain

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Max
Secondary Criteria Evaluatio Scor Evaluatio Scor Evaluatio Scor
Score
n e n e n e
Rolling (%) 89% 2.44 89% 2.44 87% 2.5
Terrai
Mountainou 4 11% 1.5 11% 1.5 13% 1.26
n Type
s (%)
Total Score 3.94 3.94 3.76
Horizontal Alignment
Horizontal alignment of a road consists of tangents and curves that string consecutively
in the planner dimension of the roadway to form the planner look of the road. The way
the tangents and curves could combine and the form of alignment mainly depends on
the topography of the area, the drainage characteristic including the natural gullies,
streams and rivers, geotechnical considerations, social and administrative
considerations and environmental considerations.

11
Anticipated Departure from horizontal alignment standard
Radii less than 120m in mountainous section and 95m in towns and village section are
considered as departures from standard in relation to the design speed of 60km/hr and
50km/hr in mountainous terrains and village/town section respectively. To appreciate
the comparative severity of the sharpness of the departed curves, 1/R (inverse of the
radius) has been calculated for each departed curve along each alternative and
summed up to determine the total 1/R along each alternative. Such departures from
horizontal radius are observed in all alternatives.

Table 6.1:10: Departed horizontal curves in Alternative 1

PI
No. Radius Terrain
Station
1/R
1 48+458.83 30 Urban 0.03
2 48+534.81 50 Urban 0.02
3 48+917.29 30 Urban 0.03
4 49+048.06 60 Urban 0.017
5 49+188.90 50 Urban 0.02
6 49+280.50 50 Urban 0.02
0.16
Total 1/R

Table 6.1:11: Departed horizontal curves in Alternative 2

PI
No. Radius Terrain
Station
1/R
No departed Radius
Table 6.1:12: Departed horizontal curves in Alternative 3
PI
No. Radius Terrain
Station
1/R
1 48+773.03 50 Urban 0.02

Therefore, as we can see from above tables, severity of the sharpness of the departed
curves, alternative 2 and 3 have less 1/R ratio which indicate as they have better
horizontal alignment.

12
Vertical Alignment
Vertical alignment of a road consists of grades connected by vertical curves. Grades are
the important elements mainly related to safety and performance of vehicles. Vertical
curves (sag and crest) are designed to fulfill safety, comfort and drainage criteria. Steep
and long upgrades considerably affect the performance of vehicles especially trucks as
they decelerate to ambient crawling speeds after travelling for some distance. Steep
and long downgrades also affect the performance of vehicles and safety of vehicle
operations as it is difficult to control speeds along long and steep downgrades.

Anticipated Departure from vertical alignment standard

As explained above, the project road traverses through difficult mountainous terrains
and village/town section. In traversing these difficult terrains departure from vertical
alignment particularly departure from maximum grades is inevitable. Grades steeper
than 10% (maximum grade) in mountainous terrains and village/town section (9%) are
considered as departure from standard.

Table 6.1:13: Summary Departed Vertical grades

Total Number of
Alternative Remark
Departed Grades
Alternative 1 2 Existing Route
Alternative 2 1 Community Proposed Route
Alternative 3 1 Contractor Proposed Route
The engineering comparison of Alternative Routes 1, 2 and 3 takes into consideration
different sub-groups of criteria aimed at assessing the positive aspects and constraints
that each route implies in the design, construction and utilization of the road. The sub-
groups include drainage characteristics, soil and material conditions, geotechnical
hazard, geometry and maintenance cost of the project road.
Based on the ERA Route Selection Manual, 2013, the following weighted average is
allocated for sub groups of engineering criteria (Table 10.4). The following sections
discuss each sub-group.

Table 6.1:14: Weight of Engineering Criteria

13
 Row No. Sub groups Weight Given

1 Road Length 6.00

2 Terrain 4.00
3 Earthworks 4.00
4 Pavement 3.00
5 Culverts & Bridges 4.00
6 Materials 3.00
7 Geo-hazards 6.00
8 Cost 5.00
Total 35.00
Earthwork
Table 6.1:15: Total Earthwork Cost

Total Earthwork Cost

Alternative Cost (Birr x106) Score
1 18.87 4.98

2 35.28 3.74

3 23.499 4

Based on the total Earthwork price Alternative 1 is the preferred Route as compared to
the other Alternatives.

Pavement
Table 6.1:16: Total Pavement Cost
Total Pavement Cost
Cost (Birr
Alternative Score
x106)
1 2.92
37.658
46.6
2 75 2.36

36.7
3 08 3

Based on the total Pavement Price Alternatives 1 is the preferred Route as compared
to the other Alternatives.

14
Soil and Materials Assessment
As part of the Engineering assessment, soil and material investigation works has been
conducted and best route has been selected after evaluation of the three proposed
routes with respect to the soil and materials surveys i.e. the sub grade suitability on
which the road is constructed, construction material availability in the vicinity of the
routes area.
Preliminary assessments of soil and materials that require emphasis along the three
alternative routes were collected. With this objective the following soil and materials
aspects were assessed along the alternative routes.
 Suitability of the sub grade
 Existing road condition
 Availability of construction material sources
Based on the suitability of the alignment sub grade condition, type of existing road and
available construction materials the proposed routes have been evaluated using
assigned relative weight.

Composition of the Type of Road

By composition of type of road is meant, the lengths of an alternative composed as:
exiting road, trial road and new road. As in case of this project the following table
summarizes the road condition of each alternative.

In evaluating road condition, the following weights are given to type of the road:

 Existing road…………………65%

 New Road ………………….35%

Accordingly, the score for road condition is calculated as follows, using the previously
adopted method giving the highest value 100% and proportioning the rest.

15
 Assigned Alternative-1 Alternative-2 Alternative-3
Road Preference
Composition Composition Composition
condition Values
(%) (%) Score (%) Score (%) Score
Existing
truck road
65 0.65 100 65 54 35 70 45
(accessible
)
New road
(inaccessib 35 0.35 0 46 16 30 11
le)
Total Preference,
65 51 56
%
Relative
Preference, out of 100 78.4 86.1
100%
Rating 1 3 2
Table 6.2-17 Score of Preference towards Existing Road Condition

As shown in the above table, Alternative-1 is preferable against Alternative-2 and

Alternative-3 in terms of road type and its composition.

Construction Materials Availability

The use of quality materials that meet the strength, durability, and consistency criteria
used to develop the pavement design is important to achieve a durable and long-lasting
pavement. The basic objective of construction material assessment is to identify
potential source of construction materials along the project road stretch and to avoid the
shortage of materials for various pavement layers construction.

Overall Score of Soil and Materials Condition

The proposed alternative route has been evaluated with respect to suitability of the sub
grade materials, availability of construction materials and the road condition.

To find out the overall score preference, the following preference values are assigned to
each input shown below;

 Sub-grade Condition…………………55%

 Available Construction Materials …..35%

 Existing Road Condition ……………10%

16
 The final route will be the one who score the highest considering the overall evaluation
as tabulated below:

Table 6.2-18 Overall Evaluations of the Alternative Routes

Evaluation Criteria
Total
Name of Sub Construction
Road Preference Score Rating
Alternative grade materials
Condition Values
Condition Condition

3
Alternative-1 100.0 100 100 100 1
Alternative-2 94.3 100 95.2 96.5 2.90 3
2.96
Alternative-3 98.5 100 97.1 98.5 2

Assigned
0.55 0.35 0.1 -
preference values

As shown in the above evaluation table, Alternative-1 is selected as best route with
respect to the soil and material aspect.

Geotechnical Assessment of the Routes

Possible Slide Sections of Alternative Routes

Slope failures, such as landslides, can occur in almost any hilly or mountainous terrain
often with a very frequent incidence of occurrence, and can be very destructive. In the
alternatives major slope instability is not expected.

Assessment of the River crossing sites

The river banks of the bridge sites are characterized dominantly by the presence of
reddish brownish Silty Clayey soil underlain by highly to moderately weathered basaltic
rock and the river beds of the bridge sites represented dominantly by deposits of Silty
Sand with cobbles and gravels.

The river at km 49+144 is characterized by a U shaped valley with gentle bank on both
sides. The bank material at abutment position on both sides of the river is reddish silty
clay soil.

17
 Conclusion and Ranking

Table 6.3-19: Ranking of the Alternative Routes

Weight Allotted Mark
Criteri
No. Characteristics Allotte Alternativ Alternativ Alternativ
a
d (%) e Route 1 e Route 2 e Route 3
1 Soil and Material
1.1 Sub grade Condition 3 3 2.90 2.96
1.2 Construction Materials 3 3 3 3
Engineering

2 Geo Hazard
Possibility Ground instability
2.1 due deep cuts on Mountainous 3 3 3 3
and Escarpment Terrain (%)
Total Score 9 9 8.90 8.96
Rank 1 3 2

Therefore, from material and geotechnical point of view, as the multi criteria analysis
and the above conclusion reveals, ALTERNATIVE ROUTE 1 has more weight than all
the other Alternatives.

Hydrological study and hydraulic analysis

General
In Design and Build Road Project under consideration, route selection phase is the most
prior step, identifying and analyzing potential routes to make final selection for
subsequent detail design and construction work of the project.

Hydrological Study

General
Hydrological investigation has been carried out in accordance to the methods and
procedures stated in latest ERA Drainage Design manual of 2013 for all potential route
corroders. Potential routes are selected with respect to some critical drainage design
considerations stated above in the objective section.

18
Hydraulic Opening Size and type of Structures

The opening size of the drainage structures are determined to pass safely the design
flood by hydraulic calculation. The design flood is the flood that adopted for the design
of drainage structures after consideration of economic and environmental factors.

Existing Major Crossing Structures

As per the Site investigation, identified only one existing river crossing bridge which
show preliminary hydraulically sufficient but as per the Geometry Requirement,
Standard of Structural Width, and Employer Requirement, it shall be replaced.
General

Preliminary hydraulic assessment and design has been undertaken mainly based on
12.5m Digital Elevation Model obtained from free online websites along with physical
hydraulic survey. Streams conveyance hydraulic evaluation, hydraulic stability, siltation
and gully/erosion development, flood encroachment, drain ability conditions are the
major considerations for undertaking physical hydraulic survey and design.

During the identification and assessments of all possible routes, the Contractor has
investigated the under-listed alternative routes with the view to comply with the
requirements of the Contract the stakeholder’s interests.
Accordingly, the cross-drainage structures for the four Alternative Route are indicated in
Appendix based on the preliminary hydrological study and hydraulic analysis.

Table 6.4:20. Summary of Drainage Structures expected at four Alternatives

ALTERNATIV
ALTERNATIV ALTERNATIVE
Type of Structure E II -
E I - AB1CD1E III - AB1CD2E
AB2CD1E
0 0 0
BRIDGE
1 1 1
SC/BC
5 4 6
Pipe
6 5 7
Total Structure

19
Recommendation

Based on a Preliminary hydrological and hydraulic analysis with available secondary

data of topographic, climate and physiographic data for identified slightly varied routes
of the project, the following concluding remarks has been drawn with respect to
drainage characterization
Based on the Hydrological/Drainage condition and required number of crossing
structure Alternative -II- route is the Most Preferred route alignment than the other three
alignments.

Structural Assessment
Drainage structure assessment of the project
The road project is entirely located in the Oromia Regional State. The project starts at
Gimibi town and runs towards the Eastern direction throughout its length towards Metu
side and ends at an approximate km 70. Where its landscape consists of rolling and
Mountainous topography within the project road corridor. There is only one major
existing drainage structure, Slab Bridge across Bildimo River.

Condition Survey of Alternative Route Alignment

 Bildimo River Bridge

It is located at station 49+144 from start of the project.

The existing bridge is a single 10m clear span Slab Bridge supported on masonry
abutments

The condition of river channels, substructure, superstructure and other component of

the bridge are as discussed below

 Superstructure –The superstructure of the bridge is found in good condition.

 Railing/Parapets - The railing of the bridge is found in poor condition.
 Substructures -The substructure of the bridge is in good condition.
 Banks and beds of river – Bank and bed of the river is defined.

20
Preliminary Drainage Structure along all options
Preliminary hydrology/hydraulics investigation assessment has been conducted by the

project hydrologist along the four proposed option rout alignment. Accordingly, the

preliminary hydrology hydraulics investigation finding dictates the presence of the

following drainage structure along the four alternatives.

 6 drainage structure in alternative-1

 5 drainage structure in alternative-2

 7 drainage structure in alternative-3

The following preliminary economic comparison are prepared pertaining to drainage

structure along each option basing on opening size of bridges, major culvert and minor

culverts along the four options as follows.

Table 6.5:21 Preliminary Comparison of drainage structure along the proposed

four options
in

Opening of
clear
Pipe

Bridge (m)
Structures
Drainage

(SC/BC)
Culverts
Number
Options

Bridge

Major
Total

Total
(No.)
RC

1 6 0 0 5 0

2 5 0 0 4 0

3 7 0 0 6 0

After assessing the alternative routes in-terms of structure no. Alternative 2 is found to
have the least no. of structure and thus economically feasible from all alternatives.

Construction Costs

General

21
 Quantities have been estimated on the basis of the terrain profile obtained from satellite
imageries. In addition to the ground profile, the cross-sectional width and the pavement
layers thickness has a major impact on the construction cost of the project. The typical
section and the pavement thickness adopted for the project road which is based on the
Employers Requirement is summarized and presented as follows. Priced bill of
quantities prepared for each alternative route are presented as an Aappendix 4
Table 6.6:22 Estimated Project Cost - ALTERNATIVE A1
SUMMARY OF PRICED BILL OF QUANTITIES
Description Amount(ETB)
SERIES 1000: GENERAL 4,619,917.57
SERIES 2000: SITE CLEARANCE 368,154.12
SERIES 3000: DRAINAGE 50,068,692.71
SERIES 4000: EARTH WORKS 18,865,259.48
SERIES 5000:SUBBASE, ROAD BASE AND GRAVEL WEARING
8,962,800.00
COURSE
SERIES 6000: BITUMINOUS SURFACINGS AND ROAD BASES 28,695,210.25
SERIES 8000: STRUCTURES 43,500.22
SERIES 9000: ANCILLARY WORKS 6,358,552.10
SERIES11000: DAYWORKS 1,270.75
Total of Bills A 117,983,357.19
Specified Provisional Sums Included within the Bills B 117,983.36
Total of Series Less Specified Provisional Sum [A - B] C 117,865,373.84
Design [2.5% of C] D 3,535,961.22
A+D E 121,401,335.05
VAT [15% of E] F 18,210,200.26
GRAND TOTAL [E + F] G 139,611,535.31
Cost Per KM 39,438,286.81

Table 6.6:23 Estimated Project Cost - ALTERNATIVE A2

SUMMARY OF PRICED BILL OF QUANTITIES
Description
SERIES 1000: GENERAL 4,531,447.78

22
SERIES 2000: SITE CLEARANCE 492,218.30
SERIES 3000: DRAINAGE 53,050,531.92
SERIES 4000: EARTH WORKS 35,277,971.12
SERIES 5000:SUBBASE, ROAD BASE AND GRAVEL WEARING 8,962,800.00
COURSE
SERIES 6000: BITUMINOUS SURFACINGS AND ROAD BASES 37,712,980.15
SERIES 8000: STRUCTURES 58,009.21
SERIES 9000: ANCILLARY WORKS 3,780,721.56
SERIES11000: DAYWORKS 1,270.75
Total of Bills A 143,867,950.78
Specified Provisional Sums Included within the Bills B 143,867.95
Total of Series Less Specified Provisional Sum [A - B] C 143,724,082.83
Design [2.5% of C] D 4,311,722.48
A+D E 148,035,805.32
VAT [15% of E] F 22,205,370.80
GRAND TOTAL [E + F] G 170,241,176.12
38,085,274.30

Table 6.6:24 Estimated Project Cost - ALTERNATIVE A3

SUMMARY OF PRICED BILL OF QUANTITIES
Description
SERIES 1000: GENERAL 4,619,917.57
SERIES 2000: SITE CLEARANCE 359,608.44
SERIES 3000: DRAINAGE 41,476,611.61
SERIES 4000: EARTH WORKS 23,499,903.87
SERIES 5000:SUBBASE, ROAD BASE AND GRAVEL WEARING 8,736,000.00
COURSE
SERIES 6000: BITUMINOUS SURFACINGS AND ROAD BASES 27,972,899.95
SERIES 8000: STRUCTURES 51,285.70
SERIES 9000: ANCILLARY WORKS 4,932,418.80
SERIES11000: DAYWORKS 1,270.75
Total of Bills A 111,649,916.68
Specified Provisional Sums Included within the Bills B 111,649.92
Total of Series Less Specified Provisional Sum [A - B] C 111,538,266.76

23
 Design [2.5% of C] D 3,346,148.00
A+D E 114,884,414.77
VAT [15% of E] F 17,232,662.22
GRAND TOTAL [E + F] G 132,117,076.98
44,039,025.66

Conclusion

Based on the above engineering evaluation criteria the comparison summary of the selected
routes is shown in table below.
Table 6.6:25 Engineering Comparative Evaluation of Alternative Routes
Primary Max Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Al
Secondary Criteria
Criteria Score Evaluation Score Evaluation Score Evalu
Road Length (Km) 6 3.54 5.08 4.47 4.03 3
Rolling (%) 89% 2.44 89% 2.44 87
Terrain
Mountainous 4
Type 11% 1.5 11% 1.5 13
(%)
Total Earthwork Cost
4 18.865 4.98 35.277 2.66 23.
(million Birr)
Total Pavement Cost
3 37.658 2.92 46.675 2.36 36.
Engineering (million Birr)
Total Culverts &
Bridges Cost (million 4 50.068 2.49 53.051 2.35 41.
Birr)
Materials (See table 6-
3 3 3
20)
Geo-hazards 6 6 5.9
Cost (million Birr) 5 139.61 4.73 170.24 3.88 132
Sub-total 35 33.15 28.12

Evaluation Criteria

24
 The following multi-criteria analysis has been used for evaluation as per ERA Route
Selection Manual 2013, Table 10.4.
Max Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Primary Secondary
Scor Evalua Evalua Scor Evaluat
Criteria Criteria Score Score
e tion tion e ion
Road Length
6 3.54 5.08 4.47 4.03 3.00 6
(Km)
Rol
ling 89% 2.44 89% 2.44 87% 2.5
(%)
Terrain Mo
4
Type unt
ain 11% 1.5 11% 1.5 13% 1.26
ous
(%)
Total
Earthwork
4 18.865 4.98 35.277 2.66 23.499 4
Cost
(million Birr)
Total
Engineering
Pavement
3 37.658 2.92 46.675 2.36 36.708 3
Cost
(million Birr)
Total
Culverts &
4 50.068 2.49 53.051 2.35 41.476 3
Bridges Cost
(million Birr)
Materials
(See table 6- 3 3 3 3
20)
Geo-hazards 6 6 5.9 5.96
Cost (million
5 139.61 4.73 170.24 3.88 132.12 5
Birr)
28.1
Sub-total 35 33.15 33.72
2
Social Community
3 H 3 H 3 H 2
Access
Development
3 H 2 H 3 H 2
Potential
Public
Transport 4 H 4 M 4 M 3
uptake
Resettlement
4 M 2 M 2 H 3
Impact
s 2 M 2 M 2 M 2
Impact on
Cultural 4 L 4 L 4 L 4
Heritage
Road Safety 3 M 1 H 3 H 3
Pollution 2 L 2 L 2 L 2

25
 Max Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Primary Secondary
Scor Evalua Evalua Scor Evaluat
Criteria Criteria Score Score
e tion tion e ion
Sub-total 25 20 23 21
See Chapter 16.2
20 17.75 17
4 5
Environmental
16.2
Sub-total 20 17.75 17
5
Sustainabilit
y (geo Modera Moderat
5 High 5 5 5
hazard & te e
Administrative Flooding)
Strategic Modera Modera Moderat
5 5 5 5
Impact te te e
Sub-total 10 10 10 10
77.3
Total 90 80.90 81.72
7

Considering the comparison and description, the Contractor recommends Alternative 3

for detailed engineering design and subsequent construction works.

However, though Alternative-3 is the best feasible route from overall assessment as per
ERA 2013 Route Selection Manual, from Social aspect the feasible route is Alternative
2.

Besides the Community and Nolekaba town administration strongly urges the route to
follow Alternative 2 when it traverses Nolekaba town substantiating by the following
justifications;
 It enhances the social service institutions and administrative services that are
located along the road corridor;
 It has high potential for agro-industry investment that in turn plays a considerable
role for the economic development and reduction of poverty in the project area;
 It can create easier transportation accessibility for wider population of the woreda
and neighbouring woredas;
 It will promote investment in the area and create better market link in the woreda
including the neighbouring woredas and the kebeles traversed;
 It traverses through an area that has high agricultural development potential that
can improve production and productivity;
 It solves accessibility problem of the communities
 It facilitates development of other infrastructure in the area like water supply,
electric power and telecommunication supplies;
The public consultation minutes of meeting is attached under Annex 1.

Scope of Work

 The Contractor shall execute the whole works under Alternative-02(Km 47+800
from the existing and heads to Nolekaba woreda administration office and turns

26
 left from Masterplan of Nole Kaba Town at Km 48+400) as per the requirement of
the Employer. Whereas, under this variation Order, the scope of the variation
shall be all additional quantity of works beyond the quantity of works covered
under alternative 01 as alternative-01(existing Route) is part of the Contract.

Amount of variation
Following detailed design, the Contractor has submitted cost implication (cost of
variation) of the proposed alternative for the Employer’s Representative review. Having
reviewed the Contractor’s submittal, comment on the rate breakdown was addressed to
the Contractor and the Contractor has submitted his revised cost implication.

The Employer’s Representative on his part prepare his own cost estimate derived from
applying current unit rate to the Bills of Quantities.

The unit price for each BOQ items is derived from detail Cost break down considering to
date Material Market prices, equipment Rental Rate and Manpower Costs from local
contractors. Crew Productivity: Labour output norms are one of the most indispensable
data for cost estimation. The output norms that are going to be used for cost estimation
should be found from repetitive records in the past. The only source of standard crew
output for road works in Ethiopia so far is from the manual that is published by Ethiopian
Road Administration, titled as Construction Management System. However, this manual
was published almost 30 years ago and it has not been updated to account the various
developments with regard to labour, equipment and others in the road construction
sector.

Hence, the Consultant to obtain crew productivity for the various work items in this
project was by involving professionals who have direct involvement to related
construction works and professionals who have ample experience in analyzing unit with
regard to the issue. Accordingly, the Consultant collected the performance rates and
based his estimation on these inputs.

Unit Cost of Materials: The unit price of materials is the estimated all-in price of a unit
quantity of item, delivered at the project site. This all-in price includes price at source,
wastage costs, transportation costs up to the site and taxes involved.

The unit cost of materials is collected from local suppliers and contractors for various
construction inputs, since the cost collected represents the selling price of the suppliers
at Addis Ababa, the Consultant added freight charge per kilogram of material to account
the transportation cost to the project site.

Unit Cost of Labour: The unit price of labour includes net expenses incurred on
procurement, wages, benefits and statutory costs.

27
Hire Rate of Equipment: the Consultant collected hourly hire rate of equipment from
local contractor and the same is applied in preparing the cost estimation.

Overhead Cost and Profit: The overhead cost of a company is dependent on the type of
contract and norm of the company in doing work. For the project, site overhead of 5%,
head office overhead of 5%, profit margin of 10%, profit tax provision of 3% and 7% of
price escalation is assumed to account for the project inputs which are not included in
the provision of price escalation(not considered in the general Item). Hence, the amount
of indirect cost and profit considered in this particular project totals 30%.

SUMMARY OF PRICED BILL OF QUANTITIES FOR NOLE KABA AS PER PUBLIC

INTEREST
Amount(with Amount(with Employer's
Description Contractor's Representative Unit
Unit Rate) Rate)
SERIES 1000: GENERAL -
-
3
SERIES 2000: SITE CLEARANCE 257,738.81
21,821.18
49,1
SERIES 4000: EARTH WORKS 27,019,242.62
08,607.85
5,2
SERIES 3000: DRAINAGE 4,961,232.71
98,842.49
4,3
SERIES 8000: STRUCTURES 180,807.24
60,172.76
SERIES 5000:SUBBASE, ROAD BASE 8,8
5,844,451.44
AND GRAVEL WEARING COURSE 96,867.67
SERIES 6000: BITUMINOUS 25,7
10,205,001.96
SURFACINGS AND ROAD BASES 86,532.94
1,9
SERIES 9000: ANCILLARY WORKS 1,403,493.00
14,121.68
95,6
Total of Bill A 49,871,967.76
86,966.56
1,9
Design [2% of A] B 997,439.36
13,739.33
97,6
Total of Series A + B C 50,869,407.12
00,705.89
14,6
VAT [15% of C] D 7,630,411.07
40,105.88
112,2
GRAND TOTAL [C + D] E 58,499,818.19
40,811.78

28
 Table 1: PRICED BILL OF QUANTITIES
Quantit
Item Description Unit Rate Amount
y
2100 CLEARING AND GRUBBING
8 25
21.01 Clearing and grubbing ha
2.88 9,492.64 7,738.81
25
TOTAL FOR SERIES 2000
7,738.81
1
31.2(a) Excavating soft material irrespective of depth m3 82.57
170.79 4,102.91
4
32.01(a) Excavating soft material irrespective of depth m3 228.89
196.73 5,030.23
18
32.01(b) Excavating hard material irrespective of depth m3 438.036
424.71 6,039.90

32.02 Backfilling
-

32.02(a) Backfilling using excavated material m3 6.312

289.34 1,826.47
139.124 5
32.02(b) Backfilling using imported selecting material m3
285 380.59 2,950.01
Paved ditch in rolling and other terrain as per
33.18
Drawings -
Stone masonry paved ditch as per the 2 3,65
i) LM 1482.4
drawing(Type-II) ,466.21 5,907.16
Stone Pitching, Masonry, Precast Concrete Block
3400
and Riprap -

34.01 Stone pitching

-
94.4730 6
(b) Grouted stone pitching at culverts M2
2763 712.42 7,304.56

34.03 Stone Masonry Walls 0

-
287.567 3 93
(b) Cement Mortared Stone Masonry Wall M3
8759 ,262.09 8,071.47
4,96
TOTAL FOR SERIES 3000
1,232.71
PREPARTION OF ROAD BED AND
4100
PROTECTION OF EARTHWORKS
Removal of unsuitable material (including free
41.01
haul)
Removal of unsuitable material and Replacement 17644.9 7,73
41.01(b)ii m3
with suitable material 2 438.41 5,787.16
Roadbed preparation and the compaction of
41.03
material -
47
41.03(b) Compaction to 95% of modified AASHTO density m3 4160.96
114.87 7,982.22
Cut and Borrow to fill/embankment, compaction 2,03
42.01a(i) m3 7023.99
to 95% AASHTO T-180 290.03 7,182.14

29
 33
42.01(C) Rock Fill m3 353.828
945.77 4,641.62

42.03 Cut to spoil, material obtained from

-
11,5
42.03(a) Common excavation m3 64784.6
178.97 94,598.11
4,83
42.03(c) Rock excavation m3 7134
678.31 9,051.37
27,0
TOTAL FOR SERIES 4000
19,242.62
5100 SUBBASE
Subbase layer depth of 250mm, 97%MDD, 2,25
51.01(a)ii m3 3705
AASHTO T-180 608.29 3,696.67
Base layer depth of 175mm, crushed stone, 1 3,59
52.01(b)ii m3 2593
100% compaction ,384.79 0,754.77
5,84
TOTAL FOR SERIES 5000
4,451.44
1,58
61.01(a) MC-30 lt 10362
152.59 1,169.33
Double Seal Surface Treatment using 19.0mm
Nominal Size Aggregates for the first seal and 1,45
63C.01(a) m2 3102
9.5mm Nominal Size Aggregates for the second 469.48 6,313.59
seal and MC-3000 cutback bitumen.

63C.02(h) MC-3000 cutback bitumen lt

178.28 -

63C.02(a) 19mm chippings m3 3.15

676.00 2,129.40

63C.02(c) 9.5mm chippings m3 1.46

650.00 949.00
Continuously graded asphaltic wearing course,
7,07
64.02(a) 50 mm thickness, using 60/70 penetration grade m2 7260
975.10 9,230.96
bitumen
Binder variations of 60/70 penetration grade 12 8
64.05 ton 0.71
bitumen 0,013.61 5,209.67
10,2
TOTAL FOR SERIES 6000
05,001.96
(b) WEEP HOLE
FOR RETAINING WALL AS INDICATED ON 4
i LM 105
THE DRAWING 467.95 9,134.48
116.018 1 13
i HAND LAID ROCK FILL M3
4151 ,134.93 1,672.76
18
TOTAL FOR SERIES 8000
0,807.24
9100 GABIONS
91.01 Foundation trench excavation and backfilling
(b) Excavation(common) in all other classes of 14.3485
m3
material 7143 273.69 3,926.99

(a) Gabion boxes (Galvanized gabion boxes,

length 1000 mm, depth 1000 mm by 1000mm 15.9428 2 3
m3
wide and nominal diameter of mesh wire 2.7 mm, 5714 ,392.51 8,143.38
mesh size 60mm x 100mm) as per the drawing

92.01 Delineators, markers and kilometer posts

-

30
 2
(b) Kilometer posts no 2
,175.50 4,350.99
1 2
(c) Marker Guide Posts no 16
,294.57 0,713.06
Right of way Marker Post Grade C20/20
92.02 No 5
Concrete
100mm width continuous centerline, 3.0m painted 15 33
i Km 2.19
and 9.0m gap or unbroken 5,000.00 9,450.00
100mm width broken for Parking lane, 2.0m 15 35
ii Km 2.26
painted and 2.0m gap 5,000.00 0,300.00
8 25
iii Zebra Crossing as per the drawing No 3
4,000.00 2,000.00
Paint, yellow unbroken line for road edges, width 15 22
(b) Km 1.48
100mm (road marking/ thermoplastic), 5,000.00 9,400.00

95.02 Variation in rate of application

-
1
(a) White paint lt 3.95
,300.00 5,135.00
1
(b) Yellow paint lt 6.22
,300.00 8,086.00

(c) Glass beads Kg 8.13

700.00 5,691.00
1
95.03 Road Studs No 25
400.00 0,000.00

95.04 Traffic Calming

-
In situ asphalt Rumble Strips (classification of set 1
(b) m 17
of 4 strips specified on the drawing) 876.21 4,895.57
4
96.01 Stockpiling of topsoil m3 325.5
151.00 9,150.50

96.02 Preparation of areas for grassing

-
4
a) Top Soiling m3 325.5
151.00 9,150.50

96.03 Grassing
-
15 1
a) Planting of grass cuttings ha 0.07
0,000.00 0,500.00
18 1
b) Seeding ha 0.07
0,000.00 2,600.00
1,40
TOTAL FOR SERIES 9000
3,493.00

Revised Project Contract Price

As a result of this variation order, the additional cost variation will be ETB 58,499,818.19 (Fifty-
Eight Million Four Hundred Ninety-Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Eighteen Birr and 19/100)
including 15% VAT.
In line with the above, the revised cost of the project will be ETB 1,835,358,164.53 (One Billion
Eight Hundred Thirty-Five Million Three Hundred Fifty Eight Thousand One Hundred Sixty Four
Birr and 53/100) including Specified Provisional sum, Contingency and 15% VAT.:
Table: Revised Contract Price

31
No Description Cost (ETB) Remark
Original Contract Sum (including Provisional
A 1,835,358,164.34
Sum, VAT and Contingency)
B Variation Order No. 01 including 15 % VAT 58,499,818.19
Revised Contract Price 1,893,857,982.53

Appendix 1
Minutes of Meeting

32
 Appendix 2
Hydrology and Hydraulics Analysis

33
 Appendix 3
Alignment Data

34
 Appendix 4
Bill of Quantity

35