Memo.1 Georgia Seat Belt Research by xiaohuicaicai


									Memo to:          Gela Kvashilava                                   Date:                    January 15, 2010
                  Ekaterine Laliashvili
                  Partnership for Road Safety Foundation(NGO), Tbilisi

Cc:               Joaquin Rodon Blas (Team Leader, LTSS)
                  Alaster Barlow (Road Safety Expert, LTSS)

From:             Neville Weeks                                             File:   LTSS, Georgia RS (NGO)
                  Land Transport Safety Expert, LTSS

Subject:          Research on Seat Belt Usage in Georgia – Proposal Evaluation and Project Scope

This memo is based on a review of the documentation provided by Gela and Eka that relates to the
NGO’s plan to conduct some research into the effects of present poor seat-belt wearing habits in
Georgia and the quantification of potential benefits if higher rates of seat-belt use could be achieved. I
understand that the NGO plans on using the results of the research to press politicians in supporting a
campaign for encouraging the public to change its seat-belt wearing habits.

The memo has two parts, as follows:

      (i)    suggestions on how to evaluate fairly the proposals that have been received from local
             consultants to carry out the research; and
      (ii)   suggestions on the tasks and activities that should be considered in conducting the
             research – assuming that the tabled TOR are somewhat flexible and also assuming that
             the NGO will be playing an active and supportive role in the work activities.

1.     Proposal Evaluations

It is suggested that the evaluations of proposals should be conducted by means of a systematic,
unbiased process, with a number of ‘qualified’ evaluators working independently with the same
evaluation grid. Once each evaluator has completed their evaluation, the lead evaluator should take
responsibility for combining the results. A meeting of all evaluators should then be convened to reach
a consensus on the outcome, next steps, etc. The process is important in order to ensure
transparency of results, particularly when having to provide de-briefings to consultants who have been

Using the provided TOR as a basis, an evaluation grid has been prepared for consideration by the
NGO, which is shown in Table 1. (In future similar calls for proposals, an evaluation grid should be
included with the letter of invitation/RFP to consultants).

Table 1: Seatbelt Research Project for Georgia - Proposed Evaluation Grid
                 Rated Technical Requirements                        Maximum                      Maximum
                                                                      Points                       Points
A. Technical Approach                                                                               35
A.1 Appreciation of Subject Area/Local Situation                          5
A.2 Proposed Approach and Methodology                                    20
A.3 Quality of Proposal, including verbal presentation                    5
A.4 Proposed Schedule and Duration                                        5
B. Team and Experience                                                                                45
B.1 Proposed Team Leader, Qualifications and Experience                  30
B.2 Team Member(s), Qualifications and Experience                         5
B.3 Corporate Experience                                                 10
                                           Total Technical Score                                      80
                                                 Pass Mark (60%)         48
C. Financial Aspects                                                                                  20
C.1 Fee Rate(s)
C.2 Out-of-Pocket Expenses
                                Total Adjusted Combined Score           100                           100

  Expenses may be left out of the evaluation and negotiated with the designated winning consultant, or adjusted to
ensure proposed costs are reasonable
  Final score is a combined points total for the technical and financial proposals (see text)

The basic approach in the evaluation is that the maximum score for the Technical proposal would be
80 points, broken down as in Table 1. To have their Financial proposal considered, the proponent
would have to achieve a score of at least 60% of the 80 points, (i.e. 48 or more) for their Technical

The Financial proposal may be considered based only on proposed fee rates, or including proposed
out-of-pocket expenses. The latter may need to be adjusted to ensure they are considered
reasonable and consistent with the proponent’s Technical approach. A maximum of 20 points should
be scored for the proponent with the lowest cost proposal (or lowest fee rate). Other proponents
should be awarded points on a pro-rata basis, i.e. 20 points less 2 points for each percentage point by
which the daily fee rate exceeds the lowest daily rate proposed (if using fee rates only), or by relating
their Technical scores to those of the lowest cost proponent as follows:

Example: Proponent A has a Technical score of 60 points and has the lowest cost Financial proposal.
         Proponent B has a Technical score of 72 points.

              Proponent A scores the maximum 20 points for their Financial proposal.         Proponent B
              scores (60/72 x 20) points for their Financial proposal, or 16.67 points.

The points for the Technical and Financial proposals should then be added together to form the final
evaluation result. Note in the above example, Proponent A would have a total combined score of 80
points and Proponent B would have a total combined score of 88.67 points. Proponent B should be
awarded the contract.

It is noted that the final meeting of the evaluators should ensure that there is a broad consensus of the
final result.

2.           Project Scope - Discussion

The following extract from the TOR provides an indication of the NGO’s main aims in conducting the
research project; i.e.

     (i)        To determine the consequences of non-use of safety belts by Georgian drivers and
     (ii)       To quantify Georgia’s economic loss caused by the non-use of seat belts; and
     (iii)      To analyse the scope and socio-economic benefits offered by the introduction and
                enforcement of mandatory seat belt regulation for urban roads and highways.

By way of background, the following limited information is noted from referenced documentation:
               Georgia has a Road Safety Law , which requires that drivers and passengers in the front
                seat of motor vehicles have to use safety belts if fitted on their vehicle. The Law makes
                no mention of passengers in rear seats having to use safety belts;
               The Law also makes no mention of children having to be restrained when a passenger in
                a motor vehicle unless they are using the front seat;
               A recent World Bank publication records that safety belt usage in Georgia is: 2% by front
                seat drivers/passengers of motor vehicles in urban areas; 41% on highways;
               The same World Bank publication indicates that the ‘Value of a statistical life’ (VSL) may
                be estimated as approximately 70 x GDP per capita which, for Georgia, indicates the unit
                economic cost per fatality in 2008 was $US 350,070; and
               A recent WHO publication indicates there were 737 traffic fatalities in Georgia in 2007 (up
                from 675 in 2006) and 7,340 non-fatal injuries from crashes.

The following are a series of ideas and suggestions which could be considered for inclusion as part of
the scope and extent of the project to help attain the results required:

  Georgia Road Safety Law, 1999
  ‘Death on Wheels, Making Roads Safe in Europe and Central Asia’, World Bank, 2009
  Global Report on the Status of Road Safety, WHO, 2009

2.1      A sample survey should be undertaken of current levels of seat-belt usage in Georgia ;
covering drivers, front-seat passengers and rear-seat passengers separately, with results for children
(less than about 5 years approx) noted specifically when in vehicles. The surveys should be
conducted in both urban areas and on highways. The surveys will establish a base-line situation for
later use in assessing targets for an action programme.

2.2      A sample survey should be undertaken of motor vehicles (cars, vans, SUVs, pickups, etc) to
determine a representative sample of the vehicle fleet and the percentages that have seat-belts fitted
for front seats only, and those with seat-belts for both front and rear seats. The surveys will establish
a base-line situation to assist in developing a practical strategy for the action programme.

2.3    An investigation should be undertaken of the traffic accident database; specifically for those
crashes resulting in fatalities and personal injuries . The investigation should cover the following:

-   for fatalities: how many victims were wearing seat-belts, and how many were not wearing seat-
    belts? Of these, how many were drivers; how many were passengers; and how many were
    passengers in the front or rear seats? What was the age of the driver in each case? Were
    children (under 5) killed and were they using seat-belts or child seats/other restraints)
-   for injuries: how many may be categorized as ‘serious’ (i.e. persons hospitalized) and as ‘slight’
    injuries (i.e. persons received medical attention, but not hospitalized) ?
-   of the ‘serious’ injuries , how many of the injured persons were wearing seat-belts, and how many
    were not? Of these, how many were drivers; how many were passengers; and how many were
    passengers in the front or rear seats? What was the age of the driver in each case? Were
    children (under 5) injured and were they using seat-belts or child seats/other restraints)
-   of the ‘slight’ injuries , how many of the injured persons were wearing seat-belts, and how many
    were not? Of these, how many were drivers; how many were passengers; and how many were
    passengers in the front or rear seats? What was the age of the driver in each case? Were
    children (under 5) injured and were they using seat-belts or child seats/other restraints)

2.4      Of the fatalities and injuries caused by traffic accidents, an assessment should be made of
those involving drivers and passengers when seat-belts were not being used. The assessment
should determine if wearing a seat-belt would have reduced the end result of the crash and to what
extent; i.e. would the fatality have been avoided and resulted in serious or slight injuries? Would a
serious injury have resulted in only slight or no injuries? etc.

2.5      The Direct and Indirect costs of traffic fatalities and injuries (serious and slight separately)
should be calculated for Georgia and used in the ‘Human Capital (or Gross Output) Method’ for
calculating the economic costs of traffic fatalities and injuries.

The Direct costs include the following:

-   costs of emergency treatment;
-   initial medical costs;
-   rehabilitation costs;
-   long-term care and treatment costs;
-   insurance administration expenses;
-   legal costs; and
-   employer/workplace costs.

The Indirect costs include the following:

-   productivity costs in the workplace due to temporary and permanent disability;
-   decreases in household productivity emanating from disabilities;
-   property damage and travel delay and crash costs (for injury and non-injury crashes).

  ‘Seat-Belts and Child Restraints’, A Road Safety Manual, WHO, FIA, GRSP, World Bank (see Chapter 2)
  If possible, some estimate should be included of the possible under-reporting of traffic accidents, particularly of
those causing injuries
  If the available database on ‘injuries’ does not differentiate between ‘serious’ and ‘slight’ injuries, the questions
following should be applied to the available information on ‘injury’ accidents only, although the data should be
expanded in the future to include the disaggregated information

Economic costing does not include costs associated with loss of emotional well-being, unless it
requires medical attention or there are permanent losses in functional capacity or earning capacity.

2.6      An estimate needs to be made of the possible (i.e. ‘most optimistic’ and ‘most pessimistic’)
improvements in seat-belt wearing rates in Georgia, together with the activities required (e.g.
increased and specific, focused enforcement; targeted publicity campaigns of what frequency and over
what period of time, etc) in order to change road user behaviour. For each estimate of improvement
rate (e.g. improve to 50, 60, 75%, etc), the actions required should be costed; e.g. additional traffic
police, more on-site enforcement, regular publicity campaigns over a defined period, etc).

2.7      For the alternative improvement rates (from 2.6 above), the effects on traffic fatalities and
injuries should be assessed; e.g. fatalities reduced by 10% for drivers, 25% for passengers, etc.,
serious injuries reduced by 15% for drivers, 30% for passengers, etc. Using the economic cost
estimates for fatalities and injuries (from 2.5 above), the potential economic cost savings (benefits) of
increased seat-belt wearing should be estimated. The figures should be calculated for each of the
alternative improvement rates.

2.8      The estimated costs (from 2.6) of the alternatives and potential economic benefits (from 2.7)
should be combined for a cost/benefit analysis. The results should also be subjected to sensitivity
tests to assess the robustness of the results. The results should also be compared with available
international studies.

2.9       Ultimately, conclusions should be developed on the optimum way forward and
recommendations made on an appropriate plan of action. Although not a ‘cost’ as such, any Action
Plan aiming to change road user behaviour will be more likely to be successful if and when high level
government support is given. The referenced document ‘Death on Wheels’ provides a clear example
of this (see Box 7 on page 32) for information on a successful seat belt campaign in Armenia.

Neville Weeks
January 2010


To top