Maimana Airport Monthly Progress Report Review

The review was conducted by Tetra Tech, the contractor responsible for the project. The report is part of the WO-LT-0041 MoTCA Capacity Building project, which focuses on project administration at Maimana and Faizabad Airports. The review highlights several discrepancies and inconsistencies in the draft report. The report lacks a Table of Contents and does not provide colored dividers for section breaks. Additionally, documentation is required from daily field observations by MoTCA representatives to justify progress identified for payment in the Project Accomplishments section. The review also notes that some items in the Work Summary are inconsistent with Implementation Letter 17 (IL 17), which outlines the project's scope and requirements. Specifically, the review points out that the asphalt thickness mentioned in the report is inconsistent with the contract specifications, which call for 13 cm, not 15 cm. The report also references car parking and access roads, which are not included in IL 17. Furthermore, the installation of PAPI lights is not part of the project scope. The review also notes that the discussion about the shoulders is incorrect, as the shoulders at Maimana Airport are only compacted to 98% for the first 7.5m, with the remaining 22.5m consisting of native material compacted to 95%. The review also highlights issues with the Work Schedule, Daily Reports, and Site Visit Report. The included work schedule was not issued until October 16, 2011, and therefore is not the correct schedule for the monthly report. The review also notes that several daily reports and site visit reports are missing and should be included if available. The Project Accomplishments page identifies work completed during the reporting period, but the quantities noted on this page do not correspond to the progress reported by the MoTCA Site Inspector and the GHI Site Engineer. The review also comments on the Quality Control Report, noting that the number of asphalt test results included in the monthly report does not meet the frequency requirements of the contract specifications. Some of the provided test results appear to be duplicate reports, and the test results for the field density tests on the aggregate base course are missing. Tetra Tech is available to review these comments with MoTCA and provide further clarification and support.