Mid-term Evaluation Report Sri Lanka - Unido

33
Immediate objective 1:To encourage private sector investment in selected small/micro
hydro, wind and biomass projects
Activity 2 – Wind assessment and project preparation
Outputs MTP AP LTP SLP Still
Pending
Wind resour ce data for two
X
promising regions of the country
Preinvestment documentation for
X
two promising farm schemes
Wind data logging equipment
Measurable performance indicators
(Interim assessment)
Cost-effective wind generated capacity
identified for preinvestment
Quantity and Quality of prepared procedural
documentation and computer models generated
Opportunities provided for financial
community and developers to explore project
opportunities
Likely to be
achieved
X
Unlikely
to be
achieve d
Not yet
applicable
MTP = more than planned; AP = as planned; SLP = satisfactory, though not fully as planned; LTP = less than planned
Similarly to it, but to an extent even greater than with the previous activity, the
procurement done by UNIDO for activity 2 led to a number of problems that have
delayed implementation, and which resulted ultimately in the buying of a new set of
equipment, with the old set of data acquisition equipment being left for wind data
measurements outside the project area. It was found that said mishaps are attributable
to a number of reasons, notably:
• The selection and procurement of this equipment was originally a NEX function.
It was transferred to UNIDO at a meeting of the PAC in the belief that the process
could be substantially expedited that way. However, the specifications for it were
still to be prepared by PEU. This division of functions lead to a lack of
coordination between the different actors involved;
• The equipment did not meet usual quality and finishing standards, and evidenced
not being adequate for a tropical environment. Installation manuals and spare
batteries were missing, some features deviated from the specifications and the
answer given by the equipment supplier to the project authorities’ complaints was
found unsatisfactory. Furthermore the UNIDO project manager was not copied on
the correspondence between equipment supplier and project authorities;
• The provider was a Netherlands-based trading company, which bought equipment
from an Australian manufacturer. Although the time pressure for the acquisition of
the equipment might have led UNIDO to accept bids from such a trading
company, it is felt that only bids from manufacturers or their approved traders
should have been considered, as a trading company usually results in a higher
price/quality ratio; and
• The difference of price between the UNIDO-led procurement and the subsequent
one made on the basis of the international consultants’ recommendations, is found
X
X
X
Final report, 4 May 2001
Mid-term evaluation report: 'Renewable energy and energy capacity building'