Mid-term performance evaluation of USAID/Georgia power and gas infrastructure project (PGIP) : final report

The PGIP project is being implemented during the period May 10, 2010-September 30, 2014, by Georgia Oil & Gas Corporation (GOGC), Sakenergoremonti (SER), and Tetra Tech EM (TT). PGIP was designed to: (1) promote energy security through greater access to electricity and natural gas supplies for households and businesses in Western Georgia; (2) promote the development of the Poti Free Industrial Zone (FIZ) on the Black Sea; and (3) secure power exports through reliable transmission infrastructure improvements domestically. PGIP is a portfolio of $115 million in energy infrastructure projects that include: (1) main gas pipeline; (2) power transmission line construction; and (3) smart grid improvements. The project is unique because it is funded from "one-time" supplemental post-conflict resources, is the largest USAID-funded infrastructure project in Georgia, and utilizes an innovative mix of both private sector and host country-controlled organizations as implementers. The main objective of the evaluation was to assess PGIP"s progress towards its goals and, as a secondary objective, provide lessons learned on the sustainability considerations of large-scale infrastructure projects, implementation modality, and other important aspects. The main thrust of the evaluation included PGIP activities from May 2010 to May 2013, and focused on: (1) end users" measurable economic benefits that can be associated with the gas pipeline construction under PGIP; (2) overall quality of the design and procurement of the Senaki power transmission project; (3) overall process of designing the transmission project; and (4) extent the operations, maintenance, and sustainability of Georgian gas pipeline and power transmission systems improved, as well as the contribution that PGIP made (if any) towards such improvement. The evaluators collected quantitative and qualitative data and information from a broad range of stakeholders and affected groups to obtain a balanced and thorough overview, as well as accuracy and completeness of the subsequent conclusions. Techniques that balance each other were utilized: quantitative vs. qualitative data; individual vs. group responses; semi-structured interviews vs. analysis of existing surveys; and data sets. The evaluation concludes with findings, conclusions, recommendations and lessons learned. (Excerpt, modified)