A Methodological Framework for Successful Implementation of Performance Based

Maintenance Contracts in the Department of Roads, Nepal

Dear respondents, my name is Jitendra Kumar Sah and I am pursuing my master's degree in
Construction Management at the Graduate School of Engineering at Mid-West University.
I am conducting a research study on the “Methodological Framework for Successful
Implementation of Performance Based Maintenance Contracts in the Department of Roads,
Nepal.” The purpose of this study is to recommend the Department of Roads make necessary
improvements in the upcoming contract provisions and the policy formulation about
performance-based maintenance contracts. Your participation in this survey is highly
valuable and will require approximately 15 minutes of your time. Your input will be essential
in making informed decisions and driving improvements. Information will be collected
based on your experience and area of expertise and will be kept confidential. If you have any
queries about the study, please feel free to contact me at [email protected]. Let me know
if you want further refinements.
Thank you for your valuable time and kind cooperation.
To indicate your willingness to participate in this study and to continue the survey, please
select I consent:
I consent I do not consent
Part I: General Questionnaire

1. Please mention your Name:

2. Designation:

3. Respondent belongs to: Employer Consultant.

4. Years of Work Experience: 5-10 10-20 >20

5. Are you familiar with the challenges and shortcomings associated with previously
implemented Performance-Based Maintenance Contracts?
Yes No
6. Are you familiar with the newly implemented Performance-Based Maintenance
Contracts introduced by the Department of Roads in various projects?
Yes No
Part II: Technical Questionnaire
Assessment of performance indicators of recent and previously implemented contracts.
In recent contracts, there are 3 Categories of Operational Service Levels (OSL):
A. Operational Service Levels Category A:
These issues are deemed highly important and require rectification within a brief period,
ranging from 1 to 48 hours. Payment Reduction Points will be imposed if the Engineer
identifies and notifies the Contractor of non-compliance, and the Contractor fails to
address the issue within the Rectification Period outlined in the contract.
1. Potholes, including de-laminations on paved surfaces
Recent Provision Previous Provision
not more than 3 potholes with a maximum diameter of 150 no potholes were
mm or an equivalent surface area, and/or a maximum depth allowed
of 30 mm per 1 km of double-lane roadway

One of the primary objectives of the Department of Roads (DoR) is to maintain highways
that are free of potholes. Do you agree that the recently revised provisions should be
reconsidered and modified to better align with the primary objective of DoR?
Yes No Neutral
Comment & Suggestions:

2. Oil Spills on Pavement

Recent Provision Previous Provision
Oil spills on pavement exceeding 50 cm³ are not permitted not any provision

Measuring oil spills in cm³ may be cumbersome during supervision. Do you agree that
the unit should be changed to cm², with thresholds determined by vehicle slipping
conditions?
Yes No Neutral
Comment & Suggestions:

3. Other obstructions on paved roadway and shoulder, unpaved shoulders and

roadway (e.g.: rocks, tree branches, animal carcasses, abandoned vehicles, etc.)
Recent Provision Previous Provision
Maximum volume of obstruction and maximum quantity of The road surface must
debris that is not posing a traffic or safety hazard: 150 cm³ always be clean and free
 and 1 kg per 5 m² pavement surface respectively per 100 m of soil, debris, trash and
of double lane roadway. other objects.
Rectification period: 4 hours for hazardous debris and 48
hours for non-hazardous debris

Relying on rigid threshold values might complicate inspections. Do you agree that it
would be more effective to prioritize debris clearance within the rectification period,
rather than adhering strictly to the specified threshold values?
Yes No Neutral
Comment & Suggestions:

4. Culverts, inlets, outlets, Drainage pipes/ Ditches/ Catch Basins

Recent Provision Previous Provision
Not more than 25% of the flow area or cross Obstructions ≤10% capacity, permitted:
section is blocked during the rainy season. while ≥ 10% must be cleared.

During the rainy season, a 25% blockage could risk significant damage to cross-drainage
structures, road pavements, and associated assets. To reduce potential damage during the
rainy season, should the contract include provisions for inspections of these structures
before and during the monsoon, with a required clearance rate of over 90%?
Yes No Neutral
Comment & Suggestions:

5. Waterways
Recent Provision Previous Provision
During the rainy season: The contractor must ensure the free flow
Free flow of water under the bridge and up of water by clearing all debris from under
to 50 m upstream and downstream shall the bridge, immediately and up to 100
not be obstructed by more than 15% of the meters upstream.
cross-section of the river bed up to design The contractor must maintain design
clearance under the bridge as per the clearance under the full length of the
original design. bridge and for 50 m upstream and
downstream.
 A 50-meter length may be insufficient for some rivers, while it may be excessive and
uneconomical for others. Do you agree that the length should be determined based on
either the total span of the bridge or the standard guide bund design length of the river
to ensure practicality and cost-effectiveness?
Yes No Neutral
Comment & Suggestions:

B. Operational Service Levels Category B

These issues are considered of lesser importance. Although the contractor is obligated to
regularly monitor compliance with these OSLs, they will only incur payment reduction
points if non-compliance is identified during the joint monthly inspection.
Operational service levels for Bituminous/Asphalt Concrete Pavements
6. Patches
Recent Provision Previous Provision
Shape: Rectangular and parallel to the road Patching (repairs of more than 2 m2)
centerline. Circular patches less than 100 mm in Patches
diameter are allowable. i) Shall be square or rectangular
Maximum level tolerance with surrounding ii) shall be level with the
pavement +/- l0 mm including seals. surrounding pavement

A level tolerance of +/- l0 mm may cause discomfort to road users. Do you agree that in
the main lanes of highways, a nominal sealant height (+/- 3 mm) is sufficient?
Yes No Neutral
Comment & Suggestions:

7. Linear Cracks/Multiple Cracks

Recent Provision Previous Provision
Linear Cracks i. There shall be no cracks
Maximum width of unsealed cracks: 5 mm of more than more than 3 mm wide.
10 m aggregated length ii. For any 50m section of the
Sealant height tolerance: +/- 5 mm of adjacent pavement, the cracked area
pavement surface of more than 5 m aggregated length shall not be more than ten
Multiple cracks (10) per cent of the
Maximum cracked area of 20 m² and maximum width pavement surface.
of unsealed cracks: 3 mm
 Sealant height tolerance: +/- 10 mm of adjacent
pavement

A sealant height tolerance of +/- 10 mm may lead to discomfort for road users. Would
you agree that adopting a minimum sealant height tolerance would be more appropriate
for crack repairs?
Yes No Neutral
Comment & Suggestions:

8. Surface Dressings/Overlays
Recent Provision Previous Provision
Shape: Rectangular and parallel to the road centre line Not any provision
Maximum level tolerance with surrounding Pavement: - 0
mm and +15 mm

If the surface dressing or overlays are only done on the edges (not the full width), it could
potentially cause drainage problems both laterally and longitudinally affecting the
pavement. Do you agree that a provision regarding the full width of the road or tolerance
height of +/- 0 mm should be incorporated in the contract?
Yes No Neutral
Comment & Suggestions:

9. Operational Service Levels for Drainage System, Slope Protection

Recent Provision Previous Provision
The maximum area of Obstructions ≤ 10% of capacity of item are permitted.
the obstructed cross- Obstructions >10% must be cleared within seven (7) days
section at any point: after detection.
15% during the non- Contractor shall repair minor damage immediately if the
rainy season. damage threatens structural integrity, otherwise within
three weeks after detection.

Do you agree that a mandatory inspection and rectification period, particularly before
and during the monsoon season, should be incorporated into these clauses to ensure
optimal functionality and prevent potential issues?
Yes No Neutral
Comment & Suggestions:
10. Kerbs and Gutters
Recent Provision Previous Provision
• Kerbs: Maximum surface damage: 10% of any 10 m length. Not any provision
Gutters: Debris racks shall be structurally sound and less than
30% obstructed per 100 m length per item.

Considering the implementation of a monthly inspection and rectification schedule, do

you agree that these threshold values could be omitted in favour of relying solely on
regular inspections to maintain functionality and structural integrity?
Yes No Neutral
Comment & Suggestions:

11. Retaining Walls, cut-off walls and similar structures

Recent Provision Previous Provision
• Structurally sound and not Minor repairs (damage requiring less than 2.0 m³ of
more than 100 mm masonry or concrete for repair per area damaged) are to
displaced from the original be completed within two weeks of detection.
place and firmly contained Contractor must immediately notify Project Manager in
by surrounding soil or case of any condition which threatens structural integrity
material. of wall.

Any displacement may indicate structural failure under sliding criteria and pose risks to
road users. Do you agree that retaining walls should be held to a zero-displacement
standard (i.e., 0 mm displacement) to ensure safety and structural integrity?
Yes No Neutral
Comment & Suggestions:

12. Road Markings

Recent Provision Previous Provision
The maximum allowable length of The pavement centre line is to be inspected
damaged or missing edge or centerline at least twice a year road edge markings
markings is 15 m per 100 m of double- once a year and all damage to thermoplastic
lane roadway. markings is made good.
 Missing edge or centre line markings up to 15 m could increase the risk of accidents in
Terai as well as hilly regions during winter fog conditions. Do you agree that the
provision outlined in the contract should account for seasonal effects to more effectively
address the absence of centreline or edge markers?
Yes No Neutral
Comment & Suggestions:

13. Litter Control

Recent Provision Previous Provision
Maximum number of litter items greater than a fist size in any Collect and dispose
1 km of double lane road: 50 pieces in the right of way outside of all litter within
built-up areas and Noncompliance carries a 15-point PRP the road reserve.
(Payment Reduction Point).

Maintaining a clear and well-maintained right of way is crucial for preserving aesthetic
standards. Do you agree that this clause should be reviewed and its threshold values
adjusted to more practical ones?
Yes No Neutral
Comment & Suggestions:

C. Operational Service Levels Category C

These issues are monitored on an annual basis. For this category Payment Reduction
Points will be imposed if the Contractor does not rectify the non-compliance within the
Rectification Period (3 months). Payment Reduction Points will be added again if the
non-compliance is not fixed for another month until it is done.
14. Pavement Roughness Survey
Recent Provision Previous Provision
Lane-wise average IRI of the entire SDI
contract road length is less than 3 m/km. The average SDI score for each road
Payment Reduction Point: 1000 link shall be the same as or less than the
Average IRI of any continuous one-lane baseline SDI score for that link.
km less than 4 m/km IRI
Payment Reduction Point: 100 The average roughness for each km or part
km shall be not more than 10% greater
 than the average roughness measured the
previous year for the same section.

Instead of concentrating on specific values, do you agree that considering road

deterioration trends is essential for achieving more accurate and sustainable pavement
management as provisioned in the previous contract?
Yes No Neutral
Comment & Suggestions:

15. Axle Load Control

Recent Provision Previous Provision
Not any provision To control vehicle loadings, the Department will designate
the Contractor as its agent to enforce load limits (maximum
10.2 tons) within the contract section. This designation will
be formalized in writing and shared with relevant authorities
after the contract is signed.

Since in the recent contract the provision regarding axle load control is not mentioned,
do you agree that to effectively preserve pavement, a particular clause addressing axle
load management should be included in the contract?
Yes No Neutral
Comment & Suggestions:

Part III: Questionnaire for Key Informant Interviews

16. Long-term contract duration of PBMC
In other countries, performance-based maintenance contracts typically extend beyond 10
years. However, in Nepal, these contracts are currently limited to only 5 years. Do you
agree that extending the contract duration to a minimum of 10 years would provide
greater value for money and ensure more sustainable outcomes?
Yes No Neutral
Comment & Suggestions:
17. Quarterly Inspection by Employer
The contract specifies provisions for inspections, including daily service-level
inspections by the contractor, ad-hoc inspections by an engineer (Consultant) at any time
and place, and joint monthly inspections conducted by both the engineer (Consultant)
and the contractor. Do you agree that the employer should also conduct a joint trimester
inspection to verify service levels and ensure comprehensive oversight?
Yes No Neutral
Comment & Suggestions:

18. Institutional Strengthening of Department personnel regarding PBMC

Experiences from Nepal and other countries highlight the need for a clear framework
addressing estimates, inspections, reporting, performance evaluation, payment
mechanisms, and performance indicators. These processes must be pre-planned, with
implementing agencies fully informed. However, a gap often arises as personnel
involved in construction may not remain during maintenance. Do you agree that
strengthening institutional capacity, particularly resolving legislative issues for DOR
personnel, is crucial for successful PBMC implementation?
Yes No Neutral
Comment & Suggestions:

19. Flexibility in methodology to the contractor

According to the recent contract, the wages of supervisors and length workers must be
paid by the contractor. The productivity of the DoR employees involved, however, might
or might not satisfy the contractor's performance requirements. Are you in favour of
allowing the contractor to employ their methodology to guarantee that the performance
standards are fulfilled?
Yes No Neutral
Comment & Suggestions:

20. Flexibility in terms of monetary value to the contractor

The contract includes a provision regarding payment reduction stipulating: “The value
of each Payment Reduction Point (PRP) is NRs. 600 during the first six (6) months of
Phase 2 (maintenance phase) and NRs. 1000 thereafter.” As pavement degradation
progresses, the payment reduction under this clause increases correspondingly.
Considering that the concept of Performance-Based Maintenance Contracts (PBMC) is
 relatively new in Nepal and stakeholders may not yet be fully familiar with its provisions,
do you agree that introducing a degree of flexibility is crucial for successfully
implementing this approach?
Yes No Neutral
Comment & Suggestions:

Further Suggestions for PBMC Enhancements (If any):