180x Filetype PPTX File size 1.15 MB Source: auditorgeneral.gov.jm
z What We Found Poor Governance Unsatisfactory • Procurement Breaches HR Practices Infrequent Council • Direct contracting meetings • Failure to • utilized instead of adhere to HR Inadequate competitive bidding oversight by Policy. • Full value not received • Inconsistent HR portfolio ministry for contracts • Transactions not Practices. • Onerous costs related • Unapproved related to CMU’s to contracts core business emoluments. Rationale: To ascertain whether CMU’s operational activities, z governance & monitoring framework were consistent with the principles of good financial management. Procurement & Governance Practices Contracts & Oversight Management Human Resource Accounting Practices Management Practices z Governance Practices and Oversight Oversight Deficiencies by Council Oversight weaknesses by Portfolio Ministry • • The Portfolio Ministry failed to request No internal auditor engaged; copies of minutes from CMU Council • Minutes of meetings of CMU Council were not meetings; submitted to the Portfolio Ministry by the Council in breach of the GOJ Accountability • No independent audit of CMU by Portfolio Framework for Senior Officers; Ministries. • Annual and half yearly reports were not faithfully submitted by CMU to respective Permanent Secretaries. z Procurement and Contracts Management Lunch Suppliers • Total of $46.7M paid to 15 lunch suppliers over a 12 month period under the Technology Advancement Programme (TAP) and Career Advancement Youth Employment Solution (CAPYES) programmes. • 9 of the 15 lunch providers exceeded the allowable threshold of $1.5M for direct contracting, based on GoJ Procurement Guidelines. Computer Equipment • $10.6 million paid to a supplier for computer equipment and other peripheral items without a formal contract or provision of warranty. • No evidence of the fixed assets in CMU’s inventory records; assets could not be identified by the AuGD. Project Management • CMU incurred demurrage charges of $33M related to purchase of sandwich panels, as CMU failed to return the shipping line’s containers as scheduled. • The building project remains at foundation stage after approximately two years. z Construction of Block “E” CMU took a decision to construct a new student block at an estimated cost of $701.8M without adequate source of funding. CMU provided no evidence Logistic Company 1 was Logistic Company 1 attached that the Council considered selected as the supplier of the quotes of the other the feasibility of the project the sandwich panels, bidders with its submissions or that given the cost, although it was non- although we found no sought Cabinet’s approval. responsive, having submitted evidence that the four CMU was unable to indicate its bid after the deadline. bidders authorized Logistic the basis on which five Further, the company was Company 1 to submit the companies were pre- incorporated in February bids on their behalf. selected to supply the 2018, the same month that sandwich panels for use in CMU invited bids for the the construction. procurement opportunity.
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.