Infrastructure Report Card Framework

2012. All rights reserved.
No part of this
document may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form,
or by any means, electronic, photocopying,
mechanical, recording or otherwise, without
prior permission of the copyright of EIZ
INFRASTRUCTURE REPORT CARD (IRC) FRAMEWORK
Moving towards safe and fit for purpose national infrastructure through
Infrastructure Report Card System (IRCS).

OCTOBER 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
1.1 The Engineering Institution of Zambia ......................................................................... 1
1.2 National infrastructure .................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Infrastructure Report Card System ............................................................................... 1
1.4 Report Card ...................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 INFRASTRUCTURE GRADING SYSTEM ..................................................................2
2.1 Components of the Grading System .............................................................................. 2
2.1.1 Condition .............................................................................................................. 2
2.1.2 Capacity ............................................................................................................... 2
2.1.3 Operation ............................................................................................................. 2
2.1.4 Security ................................................................................................................ 2
2.2 Weighting Factor ............................................................................................................. 3
2.3 Infrastructure Grades and Interpretation ...................................................................... 3
2.4 Other Information to be included in the report card ................................................... 3
3.0 INFRASTRUCTURE TYPE Specific SCORING SYSTEM ........................................4
3.0 Bridges .............................................................................................................................. 4
3.1 Roads ................................................................................................................................ 5
3.2 Railways ........................................................................................................................... 6
3.4 Airports ............................................................................................................................. 7
3.5 Drinking Water ................................................................................................................ 8
3.6 Waste Water ..................................................................................................................... 9
3.7 Solid Waste .................................................................................................................... 10
3.8 Electricity ....................................................................................................................... 11
3.9 Fuel Infrastructure ......................................................................................................... 13
3.10 Health Infrastructure ..................................................................................................... 13

3.11 Educational Facilities .................................................................................................... 14
3.12 Agricultural Infrastructure ........................................................................................... 15
3.13 Information and Communication Technology Infrastructure .................................. 17
4.0 CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................20
5.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...........................................................................................................20
6.0 APPENDIX I: Composition of Infrastructure Report Card Work Group ........................20

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Infrastructure grading system........3
Table 2: Assessment criteria for Bridges.........5
Table 3: Assessment criteria for Roads...........6
Table 4: Assessment criteria for Rail.......7
Table 5: Assessment criteria for Airports....8
Table 6: Assessment criteria for Drinking Water....8
Table 7: Assessment criteria for Waste Water....9
Table 8: Assessment criteria for Solid Waste10
Table 9: Assessment criteria for Electricity Infrastructure11
Table 10: Assessment criteria for Fuel Infrastructure....12
Table 11: Assessment criteria for Health Infrastructure....13
Table 12: Assessment criteria for Educational Infrastructure....14
Table 13: Assessment criteria for Earth dams, Weirs and Canals.15
Table 14: Assessment criteria for Storage Sheds...16
Table 15: Assessment criteria for Post Offices..17
Table 16: Assessment criteria for Telephone Networks....18
Table 17: Assessment criteria for Mobile Phone Networks..18
Table 18: Assessment criteria for Internet Infrastructure & ISP Networks..19
Table 19: Assessment criteria for Satellite Infrastructure.....19
Table 20: Assessment criteria for International Gateway Infrastructure ..19

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Bridge.......4
Figure 2: Road..5
Figure 3: Railway.....6
Figure 4: Airport......7
Figure 5: Drinking Water.8
Figure 6: Waste Water.9
Figure 7: Solid Waste.10
Figure 8: Electricity...11
Figure 9: Fuel.....12
Figure 10: Health...13
Figure 11: Education..14
Figure 12: Agriculture....15
Figure 10: ICT....17

ACRONYMS
EIZ Engineering Institution of Zambia
IRC Infrastructure Report Card
IRCS Infrastructure Report Card System
ZESCO Zambia Electricity Supply Corporation Limited
ZAMTEL Zambia Telecommunication Corporation Limited
ICT Information and Communications Technology
SAIDI System Average Interruption Duration Index
SAIFI System Average Interruption Frequency Index
CAIFI Customer Average Interruption Duration Index
ASAI Average Service Availability Index
UTH University Teaching Hospital
UNZA University of Zambia

FOREWORD
Infrastructure is the capital stock that propels provision of public goods and services in an
economy. It produces various effects, including those on production activities and quality of life
for the households, which thus permeate the entire society and economy of the nation at large.

Therefore, the role that robust infrastructure plays in any economy cannot be overemphasized.
The absence of such infrastructure hampers the much needed efficient and effective economic
activities to enhance growth and national development.
The poor maintenance culture and inadequate resource allocation in the past have been identified
as the main inadequacies in the development and management of national infrastructure in
Zambia.

The above scenario impelled the Engineering Institution of Zambia (EIZ) to propose a way of
arresting the situation through the development of an Infrastructure Report Card System (IRCS).
The IRCS outlines a methodology that the Engineering Institution of Zambia will employ in
assessing the state and condition of our infrastructure. The infrastructure report Card is the first
of its kind in Zambia and shall "grade" the state of the built infrastructure in selected sectors.
The IRCS will provide a comprehensive analysis and reporting to date on Zambias
infrastructure.

The IRC framework shall be issued to a wide audience of stakeholders, including Political
leadership, civil servants, local authorities, trade, regulatory and consumer bodies, as well as the
media, Architects, Engineers, Financiers and Cooperating Partners.

The IRCS is not a prescriptive document, but a guide on choices and investment decisions that
policy makers need to take in order to accelerate economic development. Our hope as
practitioners is that the data and information provided here will support efforts aimed at helping
government efficiently allocate resources for renewal and development of infrastructure in
Zambia.
Eng. Bernard Chiwala
..
(EIZ President) October 2012

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Engineering Institution of Zambia
The Engineering Institution of Zambia (EIZ) is a statutory professional body mandated by the
EIZ Act No. 17 of 2010 to regulate and promote the practice of engineering in Zambia. By virtue
of this Act it is also responsible for, among other things, raising the character and status of the
profession of engineering and allied disciplines, promoting honourable and good practice and
increasing the confidence of the community in individuals practicing engineering. Arising from
the functions of the institution particularly clause 4(f) and (g) of the EIZ Act, which respectively
state that To advise the Government on matters relating to the engineering profession as well
as To promote the general advancement of science, engineering, technology and allied
disciplines for the improvement of the quality of life and from its Strategic Plan, running from
2008 to 2013, the Institution resolved to develop and implement an Infrastructure Report Card
System (IRCS).
1.2 National Infrastructure
National infrastructure is vital to the economy of any country. It involves the mechanisms by
which essential services such as water, energy, transport and telecommunications are delivered to
propel economic growth. Further well maintained national infrastructure is necessary for high
economic productivity, improvement in quality of life, environmental preservation and
sustainable development. Inadequate or poor national infrastructure eventually results in the
disruption of the delivery of essential public services leading to an immediate adverse impact on
the socio-economic well-being of the nation. For example the power outages that Zambia has
been experiencing has resulted in lost production hours and increased costs of production as
manufactures have to use their own electricity generators. In the transportation sector
transporters have opted to use the road network to transport goods of tonnage more appropriate
for the rail network; this has resulted in high maintenance costs of the road network. These
infrastructure problems and many others are endangering our nations future prosperity.
Therefore, there must be adequate funding provision for construction, operation, maintenance

and eventual de-commissioning of national infrastructure so that it meets todays and tomorrows
needs. Policy-makers and the general public must be made aware about the quality of national
infrastructure at all times in order that informed decisions are made about the allocation of
resources for infrastructure development, maintenance and expansion.

1.3 Infrastructure Report Card System
The report card system provides the criteria to be used to rate the quality of infrastructure. Basic
fundamental components of infrastructure that have to be considered in the assessment are
indentified. These fundamental components are not infrastructure specific. However the
performance indicators assigned to each fundamental component are infrastructure specific. For
example capacity is a fundamental component for all infrastructure categories but the ability to
meet peak day demand would be the performance used to assess the capacity of drinking water
infrastructure and ability to meet peak wet weather flow for wastewater infrastructure.
1.4 Report Card
An Infrastructure Report Card (IRC) is simply a small card with grades, which indicate the
quality or performance of infrastructure in a country. It is the document that presents the results
of the rating process carried out using the criteria given in the infrastructure report card system.
Each infrastructure category is given a grading based on its performance and the implication and
meaning of the grading is explained. Its basically, one approach that can be used to assess and
inform stakeholders about the general state of infrastructure without resorting to the use of
technical jargon. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Institution of Civil
Engineers (ICE) were among the first to develop report cards in the late 1990s. Similar report
cards have been developed in Canada, Australia and South Africa. This has lead to an increased
dialogue and engagement between civil society and the custodians of economic and social
physical assets. Thus the governments in these countries have begun to reverse the trend of
declining investment in public infrastructure.

2.0 INFRASTRUCTURE GRADING SYSTEM
An Infrastructure Report Card Grading System process comprises activities encompassing: resource
mobilisation; the selection of experts to carry out the assessment; physical infrastructure assessment and
grading; preparation of the Report Card and its dissemination to stakeholders.
2.1 Components of the Grading System
The grading system considers four components of infrastructure in the assessment process,
namely: condition; capacity; operation; and security.
2.1.1 Condition
Condition assessment considers whether the infrastructure is fit for the purpose that it was
constructed for in terms observed physical condition and compliance to specified standards. The
assessment also considers future conditions of up to three years, particularly where future
projects, which would improve the conditions of the facility, are either funded or are in the
design pipeline.
2.1.2 Capacity
Capacity assessment considers the ability of the infrastructure to meet the demands of the
existing population as well for the population in ten to twenty years time. In other words, one
should be able to consider questions like: Are the current roads and bridges able to sustain the
current population? Will the roads and bridges be able to support the community in ten years?
Twenty years?

2.1.3 Operation
The assessment of operational requirements is used to determine whether there are sufficient
financial provisions and human resources for facility maintenance. Consideration should be
made of infrastructure failures contributing to non-compliance with regulatory requirements.

2.1.4 Security
Security assessment examines the elements that provide physical improvements required to
assure asset protection from identifiable threats, considering the following issues:
a) All-hazards approach: All kinds of hazards both natural and man-made are treated under a
single set of management arrangement so as to allocate resources on a comparative hazard
basis that reflects the risk, probability and impact of each hazard.
b) Risk management: The systematic application of management practices supposed to be used
to address or mitigate all hazards.
c) Comprehensive approach: A security strategy that encompasses prevention, preparedness,
response and recovery with respect to any kind of security threat.
d) I nternal and external integration: Security strategies that are effective and integrated into
all activities of an infrastructure implementation agency, and integrated with external
stakeholders such as government and the community.
2.2 Weighting Factor
The fundamental aspects described above must each have an equal weight of 25%, giving a total
of 100%. However, for some facility types, the weighting may vary depending on the variability
in the significance of each aspect of the infrastructure types.
2.3 Infrastructure Grades and Interpretation
Table 1 shows the grades that could be assigned to infrastructure, together with the interpretation
of the grades in a points system, with the accompanying descriptive narration. It also shows the
attributable weighting factor.

Table 1: Infrastructure grading system
Grade Interpretation Weighting
Factor
Condition description
A Very good 90 100% Infrastructure is fit for present and future use in terms of
infrastructure condition, committed investment, regulatory regime
and planning processes
B Good 80 89% Minor rehabilitation required in one or more of the infrastructure
condition, committed investment, regulatory regime and planning
processes to enable infrastructure to be fit for its present and future
use.
C Fair 70 79% Major rehabilitation required in one or more of the infrastructure
use
D Poor 41 69% Critical rehabilitation required in one or more of the infrastructure
use
F Very Poor 40% and
below
The infrastructure is totally inadequate for present and future use

The grades will be issued based on the condition satisfied in table 1 after referring to the
assessment criteria given for each infrastructure category (for example table 2). To determine the
overall national grade for each infrastructure category, the average grade should be evaluated to
the nearest whole number by using the points assigned to the letter grades in Table 1. That is
each fundamental component for particular category of infrastructure will be scored out of a total
25% and the total aggregate score will be the final score for that particular category of
infrastructure.

2.4 Other information to be included in the report card
A report card contains a list of selected infrastructure categories and the grading assigned to
each. Besides the grading, other useful information about the infrastructure may be included such
as:
geographical location;
short descriptions;
design period;
material used for construction;
funding levels for maintenance and rehabilitation;
demand forecasts for infrastructure provision;
coverage definitions and plans that local authorities have; and
national impact on loss of service so as to curb vandalism.

3. 0 INFRASTRUCTURE TYPE specific SCORING SYSTEM
Infrastructure systems have characteristics peculiar or unique to their categories. Therefore, the
infrastructure scoring system would have aspects unique to each infrastructure type. The
different components that need to be considered when assessing the different infrastructure types
are discussed below.
3.1 Bridges

Figure 1: Katima Mulilo Bridge in Sesheke District of Western Province, Zambia
By using the assessment criteria presented in Table 2, a grade is issued to each bridge based on
the condition derived from Table 1. The overall national grade for condition will take cognisance
of the relative importance of particular structures on the national network. Bridges on highly
trafficked trunk routes will be weighted more heavily than bridges on low-trafficked feeder
roads.

Table 2: Assessment criteria for bridges
The condition, capacity, operations and
security assessment is used to determine
whether a bridge should be classified as
structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.
The condition ratings should provide an
overall characterization of the general
condition of the entire component being rated
and not an indication of localized conditions.
The primary consideration should focus on
compliance with safety standards. The
condition ratings that will be assigned for the
three primary components of a bridge are: the
deck, substructure and superstructure.

Fundamental
component
Category
description
Criteria for grading

Condition
Deck Observed physical condition
Substructure Observed physical condition
Superstructure Observed physical condition
Waterway
adequacy
Assess the opening of the structure with respect to the passage of flow
through the bridge. Consider the potential of the structure overtopping
during a flood event and the potential inconvenience to the travelling public
Capacity Bridge
load carrying
capacity
Compare existing load capacity with current traffic volume

Operations Functional
Obsolescence
Compare existing vertical and horizontal clearances, deck geometry and
approach roadway alignment with current safety standards
Funding Assess the adequacy of current funding levels for bridge maintenance
Management
systems
Assess the institutional capacity for asset management
Security Physical The adequacy of the security system required to protect the bridge from
identifiable threats should be assessed

3.2 Roads

Figure 2: Great East Road in Luangwa, Zambia
Each road should be assessed using the specific criteria presented in Table 3 and the grade issued
should be based on the observed conditions according to Table 1. Roads will be assessed based
on functional classification, with condition rating assessed for primary, secondary and tertiary
roads. The overall national grade will apply a weighting to road conditions, depending on their
functional classification, with primary roads more heavily weighted than secondary and tertiary
roads.
Table 3: Assessment criteria for Roads

Fundamental
component
Category
description

Condition Pavement condition Surface age
Riding quality

Capacity
Load Carrying
Capacity
Compare existing load capacity with current traffic volume
Congestion Congestion levels at arterial intersections
Average travel time during peak hours
Average travel speed during peak hours

Operations
Safety Auto and pedestrian fatalities particularly at intersections
Customer satisfaction Customer satisfaction surveys
Funding Sufficiency of available funding for maintenance, rehabilitation
and expansion of road network
Security Physical The susceptibility of the infrastructure to identifiable threats

3.3 Railways

Figure 3: Zambia Railway line in Kabwe, Zambia
Rail infrastructure comprises the track, communication and signalling systems and the rolling
stock. It does not include bridges, which should be assessed separately using the methodology
given in Table 2. When grading rail infrastructure, passenger and freight rail services should be
assessed separately and each issued a grade. The overall grading for rail infrastructure should be
an average of the grades for passenger and freight services. The assessment should be carried out
using the criteria given in Table 4 and a grade issued based on the observed conditions derived
from Table 1.

Table 4: Assessment criteria for Rail
Fundamental
component
Category description Criteria for grading

Condition
Track quality Compliance of track to specified standards
Communication and
signalling systems
Age of facilities
Physical condition of facilities
Rolling stock Age and condition of locomotives and trains
Capacity Track standard The capacity, load and speed that the track can support

Operations
Passenger services Number of licensed passenger operators
Number of passengers annually
User satisfaction
Freight services Number of licensed freight operators
Volume of freight hauled compared to demand
User satisfaction
Funding Adequacy of funding for maintenance and renewal

Security

Security system
Adequacy of security systems to protect the track, bridges, signalling
and power, control systems and transport of hazardous cargo from
identified threats

3.4 Airports

Figure 4: Kenneth Kaunda International Airport, Lusaka, Zambia.
Each airport should be assessed using the criteria shown in Table 5 and the grade issued should
be based on the observed conditions derived from Table 1. International airports will be

weighted higher than other airports. The overall national grade should be a weighted average of
all the individual grades for all the assessed airports.
Table 5: Assessment criteria for Airports
Fundamental
component

Condition
Runway, apron and taxiway Pavement condition and residual life
Lighting
Airport facilities: terminals,
hangers, lifts, communication
and meteorology systems etc
Age and physical condition

Capacity
Runway Number and size of aircraft that can land and takeoff
simultaneously
Airport facilities Ability to accommodate aviation activities i.e. handling
capability

Operations
Flight schedules On time arrival time
On time departure time to the extent that they are
related to infrastructure
Safety Accidents and incidents involving aircraft
Funding Sufficiency of funding for maintenance and expansion of
infrastructure to match growth in aviation activity

Security

Security system
Ability to manage aviation security activity
Equipment and procedures to be used to maintain
aviation security
How the airport will respond aviation security
incidents

3.5 Drinking Water

Figure 5: Chongwe Water Treatment Plant, Zambia.

By using the criteria given in Table 6, a grade
should be issued to each water supply system based
on the condition derived from Table 1. The overall
national grade should be a weighted average of all
the individual grades, based on the population
served by each facility.

Table 6: Assessment criteria for drinking water
Fundamental
component

Condition

Condition of water
production facilities
Age and physical condition of intake facilities , pump
stations, etc.
Condition of
Treatment facilities
Age and physical condition of facilities
Condition of the transmission and
distribution system

Capacity
Capacity of production facilities Sufficient supply for the next 20 year period
Capacity of distribution system Capacity of facilities to meet peak day demand and fire flow
demands
Capacity of the transmission
system
Capacity of facilities to meet peak day demand

Operations
Water quality Compliance with drinking water regulations
Funding levels Compare current funding levels for maintenance with the
required funding levels to maintain system
Water use efficiency Level of adoption and implementation of water use efficiency
policies
Security Security system Physical accessibility, fencing, alarm/detection
systems, etc. of pipeline, storage, pump stations and
treatment facilities

3.6 Wastewater

Figure 6: Waste Water Treatment Plant on the Copperbelt.

Each individual wastewater system should be assessed
using the criteria presented in Table 7 and issued a
grade based on the observed conditions derived from
Table 1. The overall grade for the entire national
system should be a weighted average of all the
individual waste water systems, based on population
served by the facilities.

Table 7: Assessment criteria for Wastewater

Fundamental
component
Category
description

Condition Collection system

Treatment system

Capacity Collection system

Ability to meet present and future peak wet weather flow requirements
Treatment system

Ability to meet present and future peak wet weather flow requirements

Operations
Collection system Frequency of sewer collapse
Frequency of blockages
Odour complaints
Treatment system

Compliance of effluent quality with regulatory requirements
Funding Adequacy of current funding for facility maintenance and expansion of the
treatment and collection facilities
Security Physical Adequacy of security system to protect the treatment plant against acts of
sabotage

3.7 Solid Waste

Figure 7: Solid Waste Management in Lusaka.

The design of the solid waste infrastructure report card system is designed specifically for
municipal waste. It can, however, be adapted and used for industrial waste.

Each individual solid waste system of collection,
transportation, storage and disposal is assessed using
the criteria presented in Table 8 and issued a grade
based the on the condition derived from Table 1. The
overall grade for the entire national system should be
a weighted average of all the individual solid waste
systems, based on the population served.

Table 8: Assessment criteria for Solid waste
Fundamental
Component

Condition
Individual storage
containers
Physical condition
Communal
receptacles
Physical condition
Design life
Collection system Condition of collection fleet
Processing and
disposal
Physical condition of equipment (e.g., bulldozers, backhoes,
compactors)

Capacity
Communal
receptacles
Capacity to store waste generated in a specific time period i.e. weekly,
daily
Collection system Capacity to adequately collect waste generated in the area serviced
Processing and
disposal
Amount of waste processed
Landfill capacity

Operations
Communal
receptacles
Compliance with regulatory requirements
Type and number of complaints (e.g. odour, flies)
Collection system Frequency of collection
Type and number of complaints (e.g. spillage during
transportation)
Processing and
disposal
Compliance of disposal site with regulatory requirements
Amount of waste recycled
Number of uncontrolled dumpsites
Funding Compare current funding levels for maintenance with the required
funding levels to maintain the system
Security Physical Adequacy of security system to protect the disposal facility against
waste pickers and scavengers.

3.8 Electricity

Figure 8: 33kv Copperbelt Energy Corporation Pylons on the Copperbelt

Electricity infrastructure should be assessed
using the criteria presented in Table 9 and
issued a grade based the on the condition
derived from Table 1. The overall grade for
the entire national system should be a
weighted average of all the individual
systems, based on the MW produced by each.

Table 9: Assessment criteria for Electricity infrastructure
Fundamental
Component

Condition
Generation plant Age and physical condition of facilities
Transmission system Age and physical condition of facilities
Distribution system Age and physical condition of facilities

Capacity
Generation plant Ability to meet base load
Transmission system Adequate grid capacity
Distribution system Ability to accommodate peak load demand

Operations
Generation plant Plant capacity factor
Plant availability factor
Plant Efficiency/ef
Transmission system Average outage duration
Transmission circuit availability
Transmission losses
Distribution system System average interruption duration index (SAIDI)
System average interruption frequency index (SAIFI)
Customer average interruption duration index (CAIFI)
Average service availability index (ASAI)
Funding Sufficiency of available funding for minimum maintenance
standards and upgrade of the system
Security System facilities Assess the active security measures to protect system facilities
against acts of sabotage

3.9 Fuel Infrastructure

Figure 9: Indeni Oil Refinery in Ndola, Zambia

Fuel Infrastructure should be assesses using the criteria
presented in Table 10 below and issued a grade based
on the condition derived from Table 1. The
infrastructure to be evaluated include the pipeline, the
refinery and the reserve storage facilities.

Table 10: Assessment criteria for Fuel Infrastructure
Fundamental
Component

Condition
Pipelines Age and physical condition of facilities
Refinery Age and physical condition of facilities
Storage facilities Age and physical condition of facilities

Capacity
Pipelines Volumes and transfer rates that the pipeline can support
Refinery Output for all product
Ability to meet national demand
Storage facilities Ability to provide the required national reserve

Operations
Pipeline Average downtime
Refinery Average downtown
Storage facilities Storage losses
Safety and environment Susceptibility to spills and fire
Funding Sufficiency of available funding for minimum maintenance standards
and upgrade of the system
Security System facilities Assess the active security measures to protect system facilities

3.10 Health Infrastructure

Figure 10: University Teaching Hospital, Lusaka

The assessment of health infrastructure is
based on the criteria to provide satisfactory
service to the public through adequacy of
infrastructure, equipment and human
resources. The criteria are given in Table 10
below. The infrastructure that will be
evaluated will include the referral hospitals
and general hospitals and rural health centres.

Table 10: Assessment criteria for Health Infrastructure
Component Category description Criteria for Grading
Condition Medical and laboratory
facilities
Hospital plant and equipment Age and physical condition of facilities
Beds and laundry Age and physical condition of facilities
Capacity Medical and laboratory
facilities and personnel
Ability to meet patient demand
Hospital plant and equipment Adequacy to service medical facility operations
Beds and laundry Able to accommodate demand
Operation Medical and laboratory
facilities and personnel
Availability of staffing
Availability of equipment
Appropriateness of equipment
Capacity of equipment
Hospital plant and equipment Operational and efficiency
Availability
Beds and laundry Available bed spaces
Quality of laundry
Funding Sufficiency of available funding and human resources for
minimum maintenance standards and upgrade of the system
Security Medical facilities Assess the active security measures to protect system facilities
3.11 Educational facilities

Figure 11: School of Veterinary Medicine, UNZA, Zambia

The report card for schools will seek to evaluate all educational facilities starting from basic
schools through to the technical high schools, technical colleges and Universities offering
science and engineering training. The evaluation criteria are given in Table 11 below.
Table 11: Assessment criteria for Educational Infrastructure
Component Category description Criteria for Grading
Condition Class or lecture rooms Age and physical condition of facilities
Laboratory equipment Age and physical condition of facilities
General infrastructure condition Age and physical condition of facilities
Capacity Staffing Ability to meet demand
Class or lecture rooms Ability to meet demand
Laboratory equipment Adequacy or availability
General infrastructure condition Condition
Operation Class or lecture rooms Adequacy
Laboratory equipment Operational and efficiency
General infrastructure condition Environmental condition for learning
Funding Sufficiency of available funding and human resources for
minimum maintenance standards and upgrade of the system

3.12 Agricultural infrastructure

Figure 12: An Irrigation Canal in Mkushi, Zambia
Infrastructure necessary to support a vibrant
agricultural industry include impoundment dams,
weirs, canals, dipping tanks and storage sheds. In
addition, feeder roads are required to ensure
movement of inputs and outputs, and connection to
the electricity grid is required to facilitate processing
of agricultural produce. The evaluation of agricultural
infrastructure will determine the extent to which these
facilities adequately enable the expansion of
agricultural activities.

Feeder roads will be evaluated under the category of road infrastructure. In addition, electricity
supply to current and potentially agriculturally productive areas will be evaluated separately
under the electricity category.
The components should be rated based on the observed structural condition. The condition
ratings should be an indication of the overall general condition of the entire component being
rated and not an indication of localized conditions. By using the criteria presented in Table 12, a
grade should be issued to each facility based on the observed conditions derived from Table 1.
The overall national grade should be an average of all the individual grades for each facility.
The evaluation of agricultural infrastructure will be carried out in accordance with assessment
criteria given in the tables below.
Table 12: Assessment Criteria for Earth dams, weirs and canals
Fundamental
component
Category
description

Condition
Upstream slope Observed structural condition
Crest Observed structural condition
Downstream Observed structural condition
Spillway Observed structural condition or mechanical condition
Canal Observed structural condition
Capacity Hydraulic capacity Adequacy of the storage or conveyance capacity

Operations
Emergency action
plan
Adequacy of the continually updated set of instructions and
maps to deal with emergency situations or unusual occurrences
Funding Assess the adequacy of current funding levels for maintenance
Seepage Amount of seepage
Security Physical The adequacy of the security system required to assure asset
protection from identifiable threats

Table 13: Assessment Criteria for Storage Sheds
Fundamental
Component

Condition
Foundations and Floor The foundations and floor are intact and level.
Structural steel framework Steel portal frames should be in good condition, not warped,
deflected, corroded, rusted or loosely connected
Walls Walls are not heavily pitted and cracked such as to render their
performance questionable in terms of safety and protection
Side and roof cladding Cladding is intact and well secured to the structural framework
Moisture proofing Grain must be protected from moisture at all times
Mechanical Equipment Hoisting, unloading and other grain handling equipment should be
in serviceable condition
Electrical installation and
controls
Electrical appliances, fittings, lighting and any electrically
controlled equipment must be in serviceable condition

Capacity
Adequacy of storage Storage capacity should be evaluated with respect to expected
national production, anticipated consumption and requirements
for maintaining strategic reserves
Variety of grains stored Assessment of capacity for storage of different types of grain
produced nationally.
Operations Assessment of storage
losses
Regular inspection, monitoring and quantification of quality of
stored grain and evaluation storage losses
Ventilation and aeration Operation of
Security Physical The adequacy of the security system required to assure asset
protection from identifiable threats

3.13 Information and Communications Technology Infrastructure

Figure 13: Optical Fibre Cables on a Microchip

Table 15: Assessment criteria of Post Offices
Fundamental Component Category Description Criteria for Grading
Condition Building.

Age of facilities
Physical Condition
Sorting system Age of facilities
Physical Condition
storage systems Age of facilities
Physical Condition
Delivery Systems Age of facilities
Physical Condition
Capacity Mail handling capacity No of mails that can be processed
Operations Mail Service

Processing time
Processing accuracy
Small Packet Services

Processing time
Processing accuracy
Money Transfer Services Processing time
Processing accuracy
Security

Security System Ability of the security systems to
protect and safeguard mail,
packages and other valuables

The infrastructure to be evaluated under the ICT
category included post offices, telephone networks,
mobile networks and internet infrastructure. The
condition, capacity, operations and security assessment
is used to determine whether the infrastructure should
be classified as structurally or functionally obsolete

Table 16: Assessment criteria of Telephone Networks
Condition Buildings

Age of facilities
Physical Condition
Equipment Age of facilities
Physical Condition
Cabling Age of facilities
Physical Condition
Capacity Call handling capacity

Number of Lines

Geographical Reach Penetration
Operations Switching Processing time
Quality of Service Line Clarity
Media Type Fibre, Copper, Wireless
Security

Security system Ability of the security systems to
protect and safeguard calls and
faxes

Table 17: Assessment criteria of Mobile Phone Networks
Condition Buildings

Age of facilities
Physical Condition
Switching Equipment Age of facilities
Physical Condition
Communication Towers and
Equipment
Age of facilities
Physical Condition
Capacity Call handling capacity Number of Lines
Geographical Reach Penetration %
Operations Switching Processing time
Quality of Service Line Clarity
Connection time
Dropped Calls
Security

Security system Ability of the security systems to
protect and safeguard calls and
faxes

Table 18: Assessment criteria of Internet Infrastructure and ISP Networks
Condition Buildings

Age of facilities
Physical Condition
Physical Condition
Capacity Capacity to Internet Gigabyte
Capacity to customers Gigabyte
Operations Modes of Last mile connectivity

Fibre, Wireless. Microwave
Connection to Internet Fibre, VSAT , Microwave
Funding
Security

Security system

Ability to keep transmissions
secure.

Business Continuity Ability to recover from failures

Table 19: Assessment criteria of Satellite Infrastructure
Condition Buildings

Age of facilities
Physical Condition
Physical Condition
Capacity Capacity to Internet GB
Operations Last mile to customers Wireless, Fibre
Security

Security system

secure.

Table 20: Assessment criteria of International Gateway Infrastructure
Condition Buildings

Age of facilities
Physical Condition
Physical Condition
Capacity Capacity to Internet GB
Operations other operators Interconnecting
Security

Security system

secure.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The infrastructure rating criteria developed for the Zambian Report Card System are based on
infrastructure condition, capacity, operations, and security versus need. These components are
given equal weighting in the assessment criteria. For each infrastructure category, a performance
indicator is identified for each fundamental component. A rating criterion to be used to assess the
quality of infrastructure is also identified for each performance indicator.
The grading system has been designed to use letter grades to indicate the performance of
infrastructure and the interpretation of each letter grade has been explained. By using letter
grades to indicate the performance of infrastructure, it is easy to raise the awareness of the
government and the general public about the quality of national infrastructure, without resorting
to using technical terms which cannot be easily understood by the general public.
The Engineering Institution of Zambia believes that the Government requires a transparent
decision making tool when allocating resources for infrastructure provision, more especially for
a country like Zambia which is highly dependent on foreign aid. The rating criteria developed in
the designed report card system can be used to come up with a report card for infrastructure,
which can then be used as a decision making tool by the government for allocation of resources
for infrastructure provision.

5.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
1 Infrastructure Report Card (2005) Available online: http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005
2 California Infrastructure Committee (2006) Methodology for California Infrastructure
Report Card. Available online: www.calinfrastructure.org
3 Arizona Transportation Report Card (2004) Available online: http://sections.asce.org/
4 Kenneth F.D and Basile G.R 1995. Assessing Infrastructure Deficiencies: The case of the
Highway Bridges. Journal of infrastructure systems, Vol .1, No 2, pp 100-107.
5 Los Angeles Infrastructure Report Card (2003) Available online: http://eng.lacity.org
6 Nhhata L. (1997), Methodological Options in Policy Relevant Social Research, Study
Fund, Lusaka, pp 77-169.
7 NSW Infrastructure Report Card (2004). Available online:
www.infrastructurereportcard.org.au.
8 Portage, Stark and Summit Infrastructure Report (2005) Available online:
http://sections.asce.org/
9 QLD Infrastructure Report Card (2003). Available online:
http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au
10 Report card for Americas Infrastructure (2003). Available online: http://sections.asce.org/
11 The Sate of Nation Report (2003) Available online: www.ice.uk
12 South Africa Infrastructure Report Card (2006) Available online: www.civils.org.za
13 Wales report card (2004) Available online: www.ice.uk

6.0 APPENDIX I
Composition of Infrastructure Report Card work group
1. Eng. Dr Mundia Muya Team Leader
2. Eng Dr Edward Lusambo Agricultural Infrastructure
3. Eng. Suzzane Rattray Roads & Bridges
4. Eng. Ian Banda Water, Sanitation & Solid Waste
5. Eng. Christopher Mubemba Electricity Infrastructure
6. Eng. Sylvester Hibaajene Fuel Infrastructure
7. Eng. Inambao Mangelele Education & Health Infrastructure
8. Eng. Garry Mukelabai Information & Communication Technology
9. Eng. Kaluba Chisanga Airports, Railways and Water Transport
Infrastructure

Infrastructure Report Card Framework

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Infrastructure Report Card Framework

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

2012. All rights reserved.

Você também pode gostar