Labels and Tags

Accountability (66) Adequate documentation (5) ADR in procurement (3) Allocation of risks (5) Best interest of government (11) Best practices (19) Best value (14) Bidder prejudice (11) Blanket purchase agreement (1) Bridge contract (2) Bundling (6) Cancellation and rejection (2) Centralized procurement structure (12) Changes during bid process (13) Clarifications vs Discussions (1) Competence (9) Competition vs Efficiency (28) Competitive position (2) Compliance (32) Conflict of interest (28) Contract administration (24) Contract disputes (1) Contract extension or modification (8) Contract terms (2) Contract types (6) Contract vs solicitation dispute (1) Contractor responsibility (18) Conviction (3) Cooperative purchasing (3) Cost and pricing (13) Debarment (4) Determinations (8) Determining responsibility (32) Disclosure requirements (7) Discussions during solicitation (9) Disposal of surplus property (3) Effective enforcement requirement (34) Effective procurement management (3) Effective specifications (35) Emergency procurement (14) eProcurement (5) Equitable tolling (2) Evaluation of submissions (22) Fair and equitable treatment (14) Fair and reasonable value (23) Fiscal effect of procurement (13) Good governance (8) Governmental functions (26) Guam (14) Guam procurement law (12) Improper influence (11) Incumbency (12) Integrity of system (29) Interested party (7) Jurisdiction (1) Justification (1) Life-cycle cost (1) Limits of government contracting (5) Lore vs Law (4) market research (6) Materiality (3) Methods of source selection (28) Mistakes (3) Models of Procurement (1) Needs assessment (11) No harm no foul? (8) Other procurement links (14) Outsourcing (31) Past performance (12) Planning policy (33) Politics of procurement (46) PPPs (6) Prequalification (1) Principle of competition (88) Principles of procurement (21) Private vs public contract (15) Procurement authority (5) Procurement controversies series (75) Procurement ethics (17) Procurement fraud (27) Procurement lifecycle (9) Procurement philosophy (15) Procurement procedures (29) Procurement reform (57) Procurement theory (11) Procurement workforce (2) Procurment philosophy (6) Professionalism (17) Protest - formality (1) Protest - timing (10) Protests - general (35) Purposes and policies of procurement (9) Recusal (1) Remedies (16) Requirement for new procurement (4) Resolution of protests (3) Responsiveness (11) Restrictive specifications (4) Review procedures (12) Scope of contract (16) Settlement (2) Social preference provisions (59) Sole source (46) Sovereign immunity (2) Staffing (7) Standard commercial products (1) Standards of review (2) Standing (5) Stays and injunctions (6) Structure of procurement (1) Substantiation (9) Surety (1) Suspension (6) The procurement record (1) The role of price (9) The subject matter of procurement (22) Trade agreements vs procurement (1) Training (32) Transparency (59) Uniformity (5) Unsolicited proposals (2)

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Audit hat-trick for Sierra Leone

Maritime Administration Evades Procurement Rules
It was alleged by the Auditor General’s report for the fiscal year ended 2014 that procurement procedures were not followed by the Sierra Leone Maritime Administration for the procurement of non-current assets.

• the administration used data (in tally slips, and /vessel/tonnage sheets) submitted by the shipping agents for the preparation of its invoices; no evidence of an independent verification carried out with regards to the data supplied by the shipping agents.
• receipts were not submitted for audit inspection to substantiate freight levy received; London Mining Ltd and African Minerals Ltd had not been paying freight levy charges and no evidence was submitted by the Agency that exempts those companies from paying those charges.
• source documents (invoices, receipts and other supporting documents) were not provided for income disclosed in the Financial Statement from International Ships Registration; rental agreements for West Africa Insurance Company Association Re-insurance (WAICA) and CUBE restaurant were not made available for audit inspection; no evidence in the Financial Statement that WAICA had paid their rent or how much had been accrued and no evidence of reconciliations to ascertain whether rental payments were made in full, partly or prepaid.
• discrepancy on control failure over collection and banking of receipts was highlighted; banking details were not submitted for audit inspection and as a result, the audit team could not trace or verify these monies reported as revenues collected in the bank; the auditors had not received 43% responses for bank confirmation.

Ports Violates Procurement Rules
Report of the Auditor General on the Accounts of Sierra Leone for the year ended 2014, alleged that procurement procedures were not followed up at the Sierra Leone Airports Authority.

• the auditors observed that a 40% advance payment for a contract for the supply of underground and transformer cables was made by the Sierra Leone Ports Authority, contrary to the Procurement Regulations; the Authority did not obtain advance payment guarantee from the supplier for the advance payment made.
• rental and lease agreements for all of the Authority’ properties to clients such as Leocem, Afrimpex Navigation Co. Ltd. and Saad Group were not made available for audit review.
• overtime allowances paid to staff exceeded the approved threshold (30% of basic salary); the reason for which the overtime was requested and approved was not provided to the audit team for review;
• no evidence of an authorization process or mechanism for the movement of non-current assets; auditors could not verify some assets in some locations as detailed in the assets register.
• three SLPA owned buildings were controlled by the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development and rental incomes from the letting of these buildings were paid to the MoFED and not SLPA.

Airport Authority Violates Procurement Rules
Report of the Auditor General on the Accounts of Sierra Leone for the year ended 2014, alleged that procurement procedures were not followed up at the Sierra Leone Airports Authority.

• request for quotations, local purchase order were not produced to substantiate procurement.
• contracts worth Le505, 555,000 for the construction of works which were of similar nature and likely to attract the same potential bidder were awarded to Havage Engineering Service Limited; the contracts were divided into four separate procurements, thus evading the threshold for national competitive bidding; auditors were of the view that 60% advance payments were made to Havage for each construction of the four different contracts.
• additional payments to Havage Engineering Service Ltd were included as work in progress, which was made in respect of construction of works for which no supplementary agreement was provided for audit review.
• evidence of pre-shipment inspection at factory site by two SLAA engineers and final inspection and acceptance at the project site which were supposed to be conducted for the procurement of the Fire Rescue Truck were not submitted for audit review to confirm their conformity to the contract specifications.
• a contract signed in January 2011 for the duration of 15 weeks for the upgrading and modification of the Sierra Leone Airport Authority’s terminal building had not been completed; the original contract price was $4,157,000 but to date cumulative payments of $6,461,000 had been paid; a revised timeline for completing the contract was not submitted for inspection; even though the remaining work had not been completed, there were defects already.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Receipts were not submitted for audit inspection to substantiate freight levy received; London Mining Ltd and African Minerals Ltd had not been paying freight levy charges and no evidence was submitted by the Agency that exempts those companies from paying those charges.Justice

Anonymous said...

additional payments to Havage Engineering Service Ltd were included as work in progress, which was made in respect of construction of works for which no supplementary agreement was provided for audit review.
Sierra Leone I hope it reaches your targetted audience.

Anonymous said...

evidence of pre-shipment inspection at factory site by two SLAA engineers and final inspection and acceptance at the project site which were supposed to be conducted for the procurement of the Fire Rescue Truck were not submitted for audit review to confirm their conformity to the contract specifications.Justice thanks for information .

Anonymous said...

Receipts were not submitted for audit inspection to substantiate freight levy received; London Mining Ltd and African Minerals Ltd had not been paying freight levy charges and no evidence was submitted by the Agency that exempts those companies from paying those chargesaudit inspection thanks for information .