PUBLIC PROCUREMENT AND DISPOSAL OF PUBLIC ASSETS AUTHORITY
PROCUREMENT AND DISPOSAL AUDIT REPORT OF UGANDA POLICE FORCE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2013/2014
DECEMBER 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................4 1.1 Background information ...............................................................................................4 1.2
Auditee .........................................................................................................................4
1.3
Basic Public Procurement and Disposal Principles ........................................................7
1.4
Specific Audit Objectives ..............................................................................................7
1.5
Scope of Audit ..............................................................................................................7
1.6
Limitations of Scope ....................................................................................................7
1.7
Audit Methodology .......................................................................................................8
1.8
Meetings and Audit Report Issuance .............................................................................9
CHAPTER TWO: PERFORMANCE OF THE ENTITY AND DETAILED FINDINGS... 10 2.1 Performance of the Entity............................................................................................ 10 2.2
Procurement Planning ................................................................................................. 12
2.3
Bidding ....................................................................................................................... 14
2.4
Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 15
2.5
Contracting and Contract Management ....................................................................... 16
2.6
Procurement Performance Measurement System ......................................................... 20
2.9
Implementation of Previous Audit Recommendations ................................................. 21
CHAPTER THREE: ACTION PLAN ................................................................................... 24 3.1. Action Plan ................................................................................................................. 24 APPENDIX A: CASE BY CASE ANALYSIS ................................................................... 26 APPENDIX B: ENTITY BUDGET.................................................................................... 46 APPENDIX C: RISK RATING TABLE............................................................................ 46 APPENDIX D: UPF SAMPLE LIST ................................................................................. 46
Page | 2
ACRONYMS AO
Accounting Officer
CC
Contracts Committee
CG
Central Government
HPDU
Head, Procurement and Disposal Unit
JLOS
Justice, Law and Order Sector
MoFPED
Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development
PDE
Procuring and Disposing Entity
PDU
Procurement and Disposal Unit
PPDA
Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority
NOBEB
Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder
UGX
Uganda Shillings
UPF
Uganda Police Force
Page | 3
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1
Background information The audit of procurement and disposal activities of Uganda Police Force (UPF) was conducted by the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (PPDA) in accordance with Section 7(j) of the PPDA Act, 2003. The overall objective of the audit was to assess the extent to which procurements and disposal activities were conducted in accordance with the PPDA Act, 2003 and the PPDA Regulations 2003 and 2014; with due regard of economy, efficiency and value for money. The audit was carried out from July to August 2014. This is the fourth audit of the procurement and disposal activities of UPF with previous ones in 2010/2011, 2007/2008 and 2004/2005. For the period under review, the Entity had an approved budget of UGX 331.9 Billion. The actual expenditure on procurement during the FY was UGX 124,752,338,012. The main source of funding for the financial year under review was the Government of Uganda (GOU) and Donor Funding.
1.2
Auditee The Uganda Police Force (UPF), established under Article 212 of the Constitution of Uganda is a Central Government Procuring Entity whose mandate is the protection of life and property, prevention and detection of crime, keeping law and order, maintenance of overall security and public safety in Uganda. UPF’s parent ministry is the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Vision “An Enlightened, Motivated, Community Oriented, Accountable and Modern Police Force; geared towards a Crime Free Society” Mission To secure life and property in partnership with the public in a committed and professional manner in order to promote development.
1.2.1. Accounting Officer The Under Secretary, Police, Mr Rogers Muhiirwa, is the Accounting Officer of the Uganda Police Force. He takes overall responsibility of the entire procurement process in the Entity. He was found to be knowledgeable of his role and duties as enshrined in the Act.. He took care to assure independence of procurement structures. Page | 4
1.2.2. Contracts Committee The Contracts Committee is meant to approve bid documents, evaluation reports and teams, award contracts and ensure general compliance with the law. On average, meetings of the Contracts Committee were attended by all members. Table 7: Uganda Police Force Contracts Committee Member Designation Position on CC PS/ST Approval Abas Byakagaba Assistant IGP Chairman January 18th 2012 Donam Ninsiima Ag. Senior Supretendant Secretary January 18th 2012 Erasmus Commissioner Legal Member January 18th 2012 Twaruhukwa Richard Edyengu Deputy Director Logistics Member January 18th 2012 Patrick Isabirye CP Member January 18th 2012 The Authority noted that the Uganda Police Force does not have a specialised Contracts Committee to handle classified procurements. 1.2.3. Procurement and Disposal Unit The Procurement and Disposal Unit is the secretariat and is responsible for day to day management of procurement and disposal activities. The Head PDU for the period under review was Mr Isaac Kyaligonza. The PDU structure is given below: Table 8: Staffing of the PDU Member Designation Appointment Qualifications Isaac Head, PDU 23/7/2013 Msc Purchasing and Supply Chain Kyaligonza Management – University of South Wales Masters in Management Studies – UMI MBA – Royal Institute of Business and Technology, ROI Pg. Diploma in Organisational Development – UMI CIPS Graduate Diploma, UK Pg. Professional Diploma in Marketing – CIM, UK B.COM (Marketing) – MUK Higher Diploma in Marketing - MUBS Denis 18/8/2002 Bsc. Economics; Master of Computer Science Twinamasiko and PG Certificate in Procurement and Logistics Management Robert 6/2011 BBA; Pg. Diploma in Procurement and Kiwanuka Supply Chain Management Gordon 1/9/2007 B.COM (Finance); Pg. Diploma in Kakuta Procurement and Supply Chain Management Page | 5
Walter Gingiera
15/11/1993
John Kinyama
1996
Judith Akugizibwe
2/2013
Joyce Atwoto
8/2012
Chris Kamugisha Betty Nansubuga Robinah Nakawoza
Driver
– UMI; UDBS - Nakawa BBA (Procurement); Diploma in Purchasing and Supply Chain Management BBA (Finance); Diploma in Purchasing and Supply Chain Management; Certificate in Computerised Records Management BBA (Finance); Diploma in Purchasing and Supply Chain Management Bachelor of Procurement and Supply Chain Management O-Levels O-Levels
Secretary
Diploma
1.2.4. User Departments The Uganda Police Force organisation structure:
Page | 6
1.3
Basic Public Procurement and Disposal Principles The basic principles of the procurement system are enshrined in Sections 44 to 47 of the PPDA Act 2003 and are highlighted below: i) To ensure non discrimination in public procurement. ii)
To ensure all procurements and disposals are conducted in a manner that promotes transparency, accountability and fairness.
iii) To ensure that all procurements and disposals are conducted in a manner to achieve competition and Value for Money. iv) To ensure there is confidentiality in the conduct of procurement and disposals. 1.4
Specific Audit Objectives Specifically, the objectives of the audit of Uganda Police Force were to:(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)
1.5
Assess compliance with provisions in the PPDA Act and Regulations and ascertain that the benefits to the intended beneficiaries were achieved. Review the Institutional Framework in the Entity. Assess the level of procurement reporting, records management and planning in the Entity Assess the level of compliance in the conduct of procurement and disposal activities Assess efficiency, economy and effectiveness of the procurement function in the Entity.
Scope of Audit The scope of the audit encompassed a review of the Entity’s procurement management practices, system of procurement internal controls and their compliance with established procurement procedures as laid out in the PPDA Act, 2003, PPDA Regulations, 2003 and PPDA Regulations, 2014. More specifically, the scope included an examination of the Entity’s compliance with provisions of the PPDA Act, 2003, PPDA Regulations, 2003 and PPDA Regulations, 2014 ranging from procurement planning and initiation, bidding, evaluation, awarding of contracts, contract administration and performance. This was done through examination of 40 sampled procurement action files as well as PPMS and Tender Portal entries to measure efficiency and ascertain adherence to laid down procedures. A review of the roles undertaken by personnel directly involved in procurement and contracting activities was also undertaken.
1.6
Limitations of Scope The audit team was unable to carry out physical verification of projects. Page | 7
1.7
Audit Methodology The audit was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the PPDA Act 2003, the PPDA Regulations 2003, the PPDA Regulations 2014 and the Procurement Audit Manual of the PPDA.
1.7.1 Sampling of Contracts audited For the period under review, the Entity had an approved budget of UGX 331.9 Billion. The actual expenditure on procurement during the FY was UGX 124,752,338,012. A sample of 40 contracts worth UGX 81,593,173,160 were selected and examined in detail. The sample was developed through a combination of statistical and judgmental sampling methodology. Table 1: Comparison between the sample and entire procurements carried out in FY2013/2014 Method Popn Popn Value Sample % Sample Value % No. (UGX) No. No. (UGX) Value Classified 18 24,755,246,300 RIB 2 60,304,405,450 1 50 59,282,805,450 93.3 RDB 31 4,610,632,562 9 29 455,331,901 9.9 RFQ 74 11,898,388,368 11 14.9 10,331,884,299 86.8 MICRO 1 4,430,000 ODB 21 23,183,665,332 19 90.47 11,523,151,510 49.7 Totals 147 124,752,338,012 40 27.2 81,593,173,160 65.4 1.7.2 Data Collection The following data collection methods were used to gather evidence. a) Document Review The under listed documents were reviewed to obtain information relating to activities of UPF: i. The Entity’s Financial Statements and Budget 2013/2014; ii. The Entity’s procurement plan and work plans 2013/2014; iii. JLOS workplan 2013/14; iv. Monthly report submissions to PPDA v. Constitution of the Republic of Uganda; vi. Contracts Committee Minutes ; vii. Procurement action files of 40 selected procurements
Page | 8
b) Field Inspections The team verified 100% of the verifiable procurements to ascertain progress and quality of work and evidence of delivery. 1.8
Meetings and Audit Report Issuance The Authority launched the audit exercise with an audit entry meeting on Tuesday 5th August 2014. The audit team debriefed the executive management on the preliminary findings of the audit exercise on Thursday 14th August 2014. The exercise concluded with an audit closure (exit meeting) on Friday 31st October 2014 at the PPDA offices and issuance of a report highlighting gaps identified in the course of the audit giving appropriate recommendations.
Page | 9
CHAPTER TWO: PERFORMANCE OF THE ENTITY AND DETAILED FINDINGS During the audit, a sample of forty (40) procurement action files for goods, works and services were reviewed to assess the level of compliance in the conduct of procurement and also assess efficiency, transparency, economy and effectiveness of the procurement function in the Entity. 2.1.
Performance of the Entity
Table 2: Summary of Performance of the Uganda Police Force for FY 2013/2014 Risk Rating High
Number 18
Medium Low Satisfactory Total
% Number 45
9 7 6 40
22.5 17.5 15 100
Value (UGX) 2,315,941,398
% Value 2.8
3,061,722,815 75,434,630,950 780,877,997 81,593,173,160
3.75 92.4 0.95 100
Graphical Representation of Risk Rating for Procurements of Uganda Police Force Figure 1: Risk rating by Number
Figure 2: Risk rating by Value
Table 3: Overall Performance of the Entity for the 40 Sampled Procurements Risk Rating High Medium Low Satisfactory Total
No. 18 9 7 6 40
Weighted % No Score (No.) Value UGX 45 27 2,315,941,398 22.5 17.5 15 100
6.75 1.75 0 35.5
3,061,722,815 75,434,630,950 780,877,997 81,593,173,160
% Value 2.8 3.75 92.4 0.95 100
Weighted Score (Value) 1.68 1.1 9.24 0 12.02
Combined weighted score = 35.5 x 100 + 12.02 x 100 = 79.2 60 60 Overall weighted average = 79.2 = 39.6 2 Page | 10
The overall performance of the Entity was moderately satisfactory with an overall weighted average of 39.6% of sampled contracts. Weighted Average Risk Rating Total Weighted Average Risk Rating 0-9% Highly Satisfactory 10-29% Satisfactory 30-49% Moderately Satisfactory 50-79% Unsatisfactory 80-100% Highly Unsatisfactory Table 4: High Risk Contracts by Method of Procurement Method Sample High Risk Cases Open Bidding RIB RFQ RDB Total
(UGX) 11,523,151,510 59,282,805,450 10,331,884,299 455,331,901 81,593,173,160
No 19 1 11 9 40
Table 5: Past Performance of the Entity Risk Rating 2007/2008 %Value High 35 Medium 18 Low 10 Satisfactory 37 Total 100
No. 9 0 3 4 18
High Risk Cases
% Value (UGX) 47.4 1,847,515,397 0 0 27.3 170,150,000 44.4 250,350,001 45 2,315,941,398
2010/2011 % Value 66 1 9 24 100
% 16.03 0 1.64 54.98 2.8
2013/2014 % Value 2.8 3.75 92.4 0.95 100
Figure 3: Bar graph showing the Entity’s performance over the last three audits
Page | 11
Trend analysis The Entity’s performance has improved. High risk cases by value have drastically fallen whereas the share of low risk cases has increased between the previous audit in FY 2010/2011 and the current audit. Underlying factors for the Entity’s performance: i)
Procuring items outside the procurement plan.
ii)
Failure to perform contracts
iii)
Failure to enforce contract management: Upon appointment, contract managers make no effort to monitor contract performance.
iv)
Failure to utilise the Tender Portal to post tender notices
v)
Failure to report procurements on the Public Procurement Management System (PPMS) on time
vi)
Inadequate contract management: contract managers failed to prepare and submit reports of contract performance in all audited cases.
Conclusion Overall, the performance of the Entity was moderately satisfactory with an overall weighted average of 39.6% of sampled contracts. However, the performance could be improved if management addresses the gaps identified in the underlying factors. 2.2.
Procurement Planning
2.2.1. Variance between estimates and contract prices Regulation 3 (2) of the PPDA (Rules and Methods for Procurement of Supplies, Works and Nonconsultancy Services) Regulations, 2014 requires Procuring and Disposing Entities to base procurement estimates on market price assessments. The audit team noted that in the following two (2) cases, the variances between estimated costs and contract values were quite substantial: Subject Provider Contract (UGX) Estimate (UGX) Variation Tyres for Gilas Deployed in Somalia under FPU Two Helicopters and One Aeroplane For Police Air Wing
M/s Centre
Arrow 355,538,070
M/s PZL 59,300,000,000 Swidnik S.A.
255,000,000
100,538,070 (+39%)
45,000,000,000
14,300,000,000 (+32%)
Implication Underestimating of procurement requirements leads to budget overruns and domestic arrears.
Page | 12
Management Response In respect to Tyres for Gilas, the 39% over and above the estimate on Form 5 was because the supplier was required to use air transport mode as opposed to shipping them. Air lifting costs could not be calculated as the source of the goods was unknown at the time. The 32% over and above the Form 5 estimate in the procurement of Two Heliopters and One Aeroplane is attributed to the complex nature of this procurement. There are specialized equipments whose costs could not be established even during the market survey because they are tailored to specific user needs, for instance the Electro Optical System equipment (EOS).Also the cost of training the Pilots and Engineers could not be ascertained at the initiation of the process. In addition, the manufactures of these craft do not cost optional items unless a procurement process is under way. Recommendations The Accounting Officer should undertake price assessment in accordance with Section 26 (4) of the PPDA Act, 2003 prior to commencement of a procurement process in order to eliminate price variation between estimated and actual contract prices. In respect to complex procurements, the Entity set an upper price limit during estimation of requirements with a buffer to offset such contingencies as may arise. 2.2.2. Procurements conducted outside the procurement plan The audit noted that four (4) procurements amounting to UGX 821,190,082 were conducted outside the procurement plan without justification. These were: Completion of ASUTU Zonal Headquarters at Napak worth UGX 178,352,012 Tyres for Gilas deployed in Somalia under FPU worth UGX 355,538,070 Completion of Kaberamaido Police Station and 2 Accommodation Blocks worth UGX 275,550,000 Hotel services for the Rwandan National Police / Uganda Police training retreat worth UGX 11,750,000 Implication Conducting procurements outside the plan affects the budget allocation for other planned items which may result in failure to procure those activities and domestic arrears. Management Response Management regretted the omission of the 4 items from the procurement plan. Recommendations The Accounting Officer should ensure all procurements conducted by the Entity are on the approved procurement plan in accordance with Section 58 (7) of the PPDA Act, 2003. The Procurement and Disposal Unit must update the procurement plan in case of unexpected procurement requirements. The updated plan must be approved by the Contracts Committee and a copy sent to the Authority in accordance with Regulation 3 of the PPDA (Procuring and Disposing Entities) Regulations, 2014. Page | 13
2.3.
Bidding
2.3.1. Solicitation documents The technical specifications and general requirements in the bid document for Purchase of Two Helicopters and One Aeroplane for Police Air Wing worth UGX 59,282,805,450 did not concisely spell out the needs of the Entity as evidenced by numerous requests for clarification from the bidders citing the statement of requirements. The bid document for Purchase of Two Helicopters and One Aeroplane for Police Air Wing worth UGX 59,282,805,450 did not specify the delivery period. Implications Inadequate technical specifications complicate the evaluation of bids and the offered products may not meet the Entity’s needs. Further, use of branded names when preparing specifications limits competition. Poor specification of requirements also results into calls for clarifications which further delays the procurement process. Management Response The procurement of Helicopters was complex in terms of technical specifications and other requirements like; training of personnel and selection of the training institution. Therefore clarifications were inevitable during the bidding process on the side of the bidder and the buyer. Recommendations User Departments should adopt functional and performance specifications in order to clearly spell out their requirements to bidders In future, the Entity should employ the services of a specialist to provide expertise in developing specifications for complex procurement projects. 2.4.
Evaluation
2.4.1. Failure to complete evaluation Following the 2014 amendments to the PPDA Regulations, post qualification evaluation is mandatory under Technical Compliance Selection evaluation methodology. It was noted that the Entity did not conduct post qualification as required under the Regulation 15 (d) of the PPDA (Evaluation) Regulations, 2014. Implication Without post qualification the Entity risks awarding a contract to a bidder without capacity to complete the contract Management Response We have noted this requirement and pledge to conduct post-qualification processes for future procurements. Page | 14
Recommendation The Procurement and Disposal Unit should ensure that all stages of evaluation are completed as established per evaluation methodology. 2.4.2. Delayed evaluation In eight (8) procurements worth UGX 1,670,294,311, the evaluation process was delayed beyond the planned schedules and the evaluation committees never sought approval from the Accounting Officer for extension of evaluation period contrary to Regulation 5 of the PPDA (Evaluation) Regulations, 2014 and Regulation 42 of the PPDA (Procurement of Consultants) Regulations, 2014. Implication Delayed evaluation breeds inefficiency Management Response These delays were caused by some of the members vital to the evaluation process being away on official duty at the times indicated. It should also be noted that the dates indicated on the documents are best guess dates that are subject to external interferences like the one noted above. Recommendation The Procurement and Disposal Unit should monitor progress of evaluation and ensure that evaluation of bids is concluded within the time periods specified by Regulation 5 of the PPDA (Evaluation) Regulations, 2014 and Regulation 42 of the PPDA (Procurement of Consultants) Regulations, 2014. 2.5.
Contracting and Contract Management
2.5.1. Suspected Double Payment The contract for Construction of CIID Headquarters, Naguru (UPF/WRKS/11-12/00003) was amended twice and in both cases, a provision was made for construction of a lift shaft priced at UGX 95,122,750 and UGX 89,361,000 respectively. Similarly there were two payments for granite tiles for they were provided for in the first variation at UGX 56,432,320 and approved yet again at UGX 56,202,000. Implication Double payment results into financial loss to the Entity. Management Response Whereas these two items appeared in both amendment documents, the second amendment was cumulative with a list of all the variations in order to show the overall effect of the variations on the contract sum. Page | 15
Recommendation The Authority shall conduct a specialised contract audit into this tender. 2.5.2. Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder In four (4) sampled procurements worth UGX 266,429,856.40, the Notices of Best Evaluated Bidder were not displayed in contravention of Regulation 4 of the PPDA (Contracts) Regulations, 2014. These were: 1. Procurement of Farm Input Equipments worth UGX 118,922,355 2. 2 Multifunctional Printers for Police Headquarters worth UGX 59,500,001.40 3. Lot 1 worth UGX 62,017,500 (USD 24,807) in the procurement of One Double Cabin and Two Tractors 4. Procurement of Furniture for Forensic Laboratory worth UGX 25,990,000 Further to the above findings, in the following four (4) procurements worth UGX 4,383,489,676, the Notices of Best Evaluated Bidder were displayed for fewer days than the required 10 working days under Regulation 4 (2) (d) of the PPDA (Contract) Regulations, 2014: 1. Procurement of 12 Double Cabin Pickups and their fast Moving parts for CIID offices under PRDP 13/14: displayed for 5 working days 2. Procurement of Desktop computers, Projectors and Networking Equipment: displayed for 7 working days 3. Procurement of Maize Seed & Fertilizers for Kabalye PTS-Masindi: displayed for 6 working days Implication Failure to prepare the Notices of Best Evaluated Bidder leaves no recourse to the non-winning bidders who wish for arbitration of the outcome of the evaluation process prior to contract award since they have no way of learning the reasons for their failure. Management Response Display for less than the mandatory days for some Notices was an oversight Recommendation The Accounting Officer should ensure that the Head, PDU prepares and displays a Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder within 5 working days of the Contracts Committee decision to award a contract in accordance with Regulation 4 of the PPDA (Contracts) Regulations, 2014. 2.5.3. Performance Security Regulation 12 (1) of the PPDA (Contracts) Regulations, 2014 states that a performance security shall be required to protect the Procuring and Disposing Entities against non performance of a contract. The audit revealed that in 9 contracts worth UGX 10,432,120,858.59 performance securities were not submitted by bidders as required under Special Conditions of Contract agreed in the contracts. These were:
Page | 16
1. Construction of CIID Headquarters on Plots 42-49, Katalina Road worth UGX 8,030,847,997 2. Completion of Bukwa ASTU Zonal Headquarters worth UGX 167,374,032 3. Completion of ASUTU Zonal Headquarters at Napak worth UGX 178,352,012 4. Completion of Kaberamaido Police Station and 2 accommodation blocks worth UGX 275,550,000 5. Completion of Abim Police Station worth UGX 442,168,497 6. Procurement of 12 Double Cabin Pickups and their fast Moving parts worth UGX 1,004,506,076 7. Procurement of One Double Cabin and Two tractors worth UGX 237,555,244.69 8. Supply of Sports Wear Equipment worth UGX 46,197,000 9. Procurement of Desktop computers, Projectors and Networking Equipment worth UGX 49,570,000 Implication Failure to execute performance securities leaves the Entity unprotected in case of breach of contract by providers Management Response Bidders submitted performance securities and they are on file. Recommendation The Authority noted that management provided no evidence to support their claim that bidders had submitted the performance securities and thus recommended that the Accounting Officer should ensure that performance bonds are provided before contract signing. 2.5.4. Missing contract documents Four (4) of the sampled audit cases did not have copies of contracts on file in contravention of Regulation 10 (a) of the PPDA (Contracts) Regulations, 2014. Consequently, the audit team was not in position to establish the veracity of contract terms and conditions agreed with the providers. These were: Supply of One Saloon Car worth UGX 68,929,050 Assorted Police Forms & Books worth UGX 49,721,000 Amended Police Forms for CIID worth UGX 25,429,000 Lunch for the Launch of Community Policing worth UGX 42,000,000 Implication It is difficult for the Entity to ensure both parties are fulfilling their contractual obligations if there are no contract documents on file. Management Response All contracts mentioned as missing are available on file for verification. Page | 17
Recommendation The Entity provided no evidence that the missing contracts were on file and the Authority thus recommended tha the Head, Procurement and Disposal Unit should ensure that copies of contract documents and LPOs are kept on individual procurement files in accordance with Section 41 of the PPDA Act, 2003. 2.5.5. Payment records Regulation 49 (3) of the PPDA (Contracts) Regulations, 2014 states that the period for payment shall be thirty days from certification of invoices except where this is varied in the special conditions of the contract. However the audit revealed that in the following seven (7) cases worth UGX 716,274,244.69 reviewed there was no evidence that payment was made to providers: 1. Office Cabinets for CIID worth UGX 34,220,000 2. One Double Cabin and Two tractors worth UGX 237,555,244.69 3. Amended Police Forms for CIID worth UGX 25,429,000 4. Maize Seed & Fertilizers for Kabalye PTS-Masindi worth UGX 36,770,000 5. Supply of ICT requirements for IGP’s Office worth UGX 95,000,000 6. Completion of Kaberamaido Police Station and 2 accommodation blocks worth UGX 275,550,000 7. Hotel Services for the Rwandan National Police / Uganda Police training retreat worth UGX 11,750,000 Implication Failure to remunerate providers puts the Entity at risk of arbitration Management Response These payment records were under the custody of the Head of Accounts who is housed at Police Headquarters where the audit team did not visit. They are no available on the various procurement files for verification. Recommendation The Authority found no evidence that the payment records were on file as claimed and thus recommended that the Accounting Officer should ensure that providers are paid within thirty (30) days of completion of contract or as per agreed payment terms in accordance with Regulation 49 (3) of the PPDA (Contract) Regulations, 2014. 2.5.6. Failure to Manage Contracts Whereas contract managers were appointed, they did not prepare contract implementation plans. This resulted into a failure to monitor contract performance and could have been the reason why contract management records such as delivery notes, goods received notes for supplies, progress reports for service contracts were not available on file.
Page | 18
Implication This leaves the Entity in no position to determine whether value for money is achieved and whether providers adhere to the terms of contract. Management Response The Entity undertakes to increase enforcement and supervision. Recommendation Heads of User Departments should ensure that appointed contract managers prepare contract implementation plans and also actually supervise the performance of contracts in accordance with Regulations 51 – 53 of the PPDA (Contracts) Regulations, 2014. 2.6. Procurement Performance Measurement System (PPMS) The audit revealed that only eight (8) cases representing 20% of the sample were entered onto the procurement performance measurement system (PPMS). The PPMS is an online system that facilities the Authority’s assessment of the effectiveness, efficiency and transparency of public procurement and disposal in Uganda. Further, the data entered onto the PPMS differed from the data in the procurement files in the following ways: Subject of Procurement FILE PPMS Consultancy Services for Not on procurement plan On procurement plan Remodelling of Windsor SBD not approved SBD approved Crescent House into a Cancer No contract implementation plan Contract implementation plan Diagnostic Centre Procurement of Maize Seed & No evidence of payment Fertilizers for Kabalye PTS- No contract implementation plan Masindi No contract on file Procurement of Sports No evidence of payment Equipment No contract on file Desktop Computers and No contract on file Networking Materials No evidence of payment No contract implementation plan Procurement of Two Helicopters Only one helicopter on and One Aeroplane procurement plan
100% payment Contract implementation plan Contract documents on file 100% payment Contract documents on file Contract documents on file 100% payment Contract implementation plan Both helicopters on procurement plan
Implication Failure to enter timely and accurate data into the PPMS makes it difficult for the Entity to assess their individual performance and for the Authority to identify and recommend targeted actions towards the key performance areas under PPMS that are weak and require additional support. Management Response
Page | 19
The Entity has been facing challenges of Internet availability which has been settled and will be supported by stand alone modems to avoid delay in data capture. However, it was noted by our side that the PPDAWebsite was also on and off hence affecting the PPMSoperations. Recommendation The Accounting Officer should ensure that all procurements undertaken by the Entity are entered into the PPMS database since this serves as an internal control tool and also facilitates preparation of reports to various stakeholders. 2.7. Management of the Public Private Partnership The Authority reviewed the case of Provision of Serviced Police Accommodation for Uganda Police Force under PPP and the following were noted: There were no valuations done on the project and thus the total cost was not established There is no evidence of Contracts Committee approval of bid document, evaluation committee and procurement method at the Expression of Interest stage. On 7th January 2011, an addendum ran in the Newvision reminding interested bidders that the closing date for submission of bids was extended from 14 th December 2010 to 11th January 2011. However, this addendum was late and there is no evidence of CC approval of the same. Bids were received on 11th July 2011 from M/s Fangda, EVG-3D Construction System (Uganda) Ltd, ACMIRS, Akright and Ahadi. CC did not witness receipt of bids. There is no information on file on the evaluation of EOI. Request for Proposal prepared in April 2011 (closing on 26th September 2011 at 12:00) but there is no initiation of procurement on file. There is no evidence on file of Contract Committee approval of bid document, procurement method and evaluation committee. A letter from HPDU to AO on 28th November 2011 informing him that at a 25th November 2011 meeting, the PCC approved the EC to evaluate RFP – there is no evidence of such approval on file. 2.8. Posting Notices on the Tender Portal The audit revealed that much as the Entity had received training from the Authority on the posting of bid notices on the tender portal, none of the procurements undertaken by the entity during the financial year under review were posted onto the tender portal. Management Response The Procurement officer who was handling this transaction was transferred in February 2013 and a new officer is not adequately trained. We therefore request you avail a training opportunity to this new officer. Recommendation The Accounting Officer should identify all training needs in the Uganda Police Force and submit them to the Authority for action. 2.9.
Implementation of previous audit recommendations Page | 20
Previous Audit Recommendation
Status Implementation In accordance with PPDA Regulation 96 and Non-Compliance clause 58 (e-f) of the PPDA Act, the Accounting Officer should always ensure that all procurements are in accordance with the approved procurement plan. In addition, the PDU while preparing the combined work plans in conjunction with User Departments should always ensure that the estimated amounts are realistic and based on up to date information in line with PPDA Regulation 104 (2) (a). The H/PDU in accordance to PPDA Act 80 (1) Implemented and PPDA Regulation 106 should always ensure that an appropriate method of procurement which ensures transparency and economy is used. The H/PDU should always ensure that Implemented prequalified bidders are invited prior to use of other sources. Always ensure that the list of providers is updated and reviewed on an annual basis to ensure inclusion of bidders with the required capacity and also exclusion of prequalified bidders who lack the required capacity or those who fail to perform In accordance with PPDA Act 64 and PPDA Non-Compliance Regulation 145 (1), the H/PDU should always allow bidders enough time to prepare and submit their bids. In accordance to PPDA Regulation 224 (1), the Non-Compliance AO, H/PDU should always communicate to both the successful and unsuccessful bidders within ten days (open and restricted bidding) or five days (quotation and proposal or direct procurement) of decision of the contracts committee The Accounting officer should ensure that user Non-Compliance departments play their expected roles in contract management. In accordance to PPDA Regulation 259 (1) the User Departments should appoint contract managers who should prepare contract management plans and closely monitor contract performance in compliance with Reg. 258(3) of the PPDA 2003 Regulations. In accordance to PPDA Regulation 225 (2) (f) Implemented. the AO should always seek and act on the
of Response There is a challenge of market price volatility which results into price variations.
To comply
The Entity has formerly relied on the NOBEB but shall in future write formal letters to the bidders. The Entity undertakes to increase enforcement and supervision
Page | 21
Previous Audit Recommendation approval of the SG The Accounting officer should stress the importance of record keeping in the PDE. The H/PDU should ensure that all documents are always kept in the relevant procurement files in accordance to PPDA Act 41 and Regulations 89 and 90. In accordance to PPDA Regulation 91 all user departments should ensure that contract management records are well kept and maintained The AO should ensure that the PDU has enough space for keeping procurement files and documents The AO should ensure that monthly reports are prepared, verified by the relevant officers and submitted by the 15thof every month to PPDA. The AO in accordance to PPDA Regulation 41 and PPDA Act 26 should always ensure that procurements are handled in accordance to the Non-Compliance relevant laws and regulations. He should ensure that procurements in the PDE are carried out in a rational manner aimed at ensuring maximum value for money He should organize training for staff involved in procurement activities The H/PDU should always ensure that evaluation is done by the approved team in accordance to PPDA Regulation 169 (2) In accordance with PPDA Regulation 265 (1) the H/PDU and UDS should always ensure that no specification shall be issued with reference to a particular trademark, brand name, patent, design, type, specific origin, producer, manufacturer, catalogue or numbered item. In the event of absolute necessity to do so, the entity should be guided by PPDA Regulation 265 (2) The H/PDU should always ensure that bid opening dates are included in all solicitation documents and are clearly communicated to all bidders. These dates should be strictly observed and adhered to. In accordance to PPDA Regulations 159 (5) and
Status Implementation
of Response
Non-Compliance
Implemented
Some instances of noncompliance
Implemented
Page | 22
Previous Audit Recommendation
Status Implementation
of Response
162 (2), the Contract Committee should always be represented during bid closing and opening
Page | 23
CHAPTER THREE: ACTION PLAN 3.1.
Action Plan
Area Procurement Planning and Initiation
Bidding
Recommendation The Accounting Officer should undertake price assessment in accordance with Section 26 (4) of the PPDA Act, 2003 prior to commencement of a procurement process in order to eliminate price variation between estimated and actual contract prices. In respect to complex procurements, the Entity set an upper price limit during estimation of requirements with a buffer to offset such contingencies as may arise. The Accounting Officer should ensure all procurements conducted by the Entity are on the approved procurement plan in accordance with Section 58 (7) of the PPDA Act, 2003. The Procurement and Disposal Unit must update the procurement plan in case of unexpected procurement requirements. The updated plan must be approved by the Contracts Committee and a copy sent to the Authority in accordance with Regulation 3 of the PPDA (Procuring and Disposing Entities) Regulations, 2014.
Responsible Person Timeframe Accounting Officer February 2015 and HPDU
Accounting Officer
Head PDU
The Contracts Committee must ensure that appropriate bidding periods as Contracts Committee prescribed for individual procurement methods are adopted before approving bid documents in accordance with Regulation 41 of the PPDA (Rules and Methods for the Procurement of Supplies, Works and Non-Consultancy Services) Regulations, 2014. The Procurement and Disposal Unit must ensure adherence to procurement Head PDU method thresholds established in Guideline 1, 2014 and where necessary, seek approval from the Accounting Officer before using alternative methods. User Departments should adopt functional and performance specifications in order User Departments to clearly spell out their requirements to bidders In future, the Entity should employ the services of a specialist to provide expertise
February 2015
Page | 24
in developing specifications for complex procurement projects. The Procurement and Disposal Unit should ensure that all stages of evaluation are completed as established per evaluation methodology. The Procurement and Disposal Unit should monitor progress of evaluation and ensure that evaluation of bids is concluded within the time periods specified by Regulation 5 of the PPDA (Evaluation) Regulations, 2014 and Regulation 42 of the PPDA (Procurement of Consultants) Regulations, 2014. The Authority shall conduct a specialised contract audit into the tender for Contracting and Contract Construction of CIID Headquarters, Naguru Management The Accounting Officer should ensure that the Head, PDU prepares and displays a Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder within 5 working days of the Contracts Committee decision to award a contract in accordance with Regulation 4 of the PPDA (Contracts) Regulations, 2014. The Accounting Officer should ensure that performance bonds are provided before contract signing. The Head, Procurement and Disposal Unit should ensure that copies of contract documents and LPOs are kept on individual procurement files in accordance with Section 41 of the PPDA Act, 2003. The Accounting Officer should ensure that providers are paid within thirty (30) days of completion of contract or as per agreed payment terms in accordance with Regulation 49 (3) of the PPDA (Contract) Regulations, 2014. Heads of User Departments should ensure that appointed contract managers prepare contract implementation plans and also actually supervise the performance of contracts in accordance with Regulations 51 – 53 of the PPDA (Contracts) Regulations, 2014. The Accounting Officer should ensure that all procurements undertaken by the PPMS Entity are entered into the PPMS database since this serves as an internal control tool and also facilitates preparation of reports to various stakeholders Evaluation
Head PDU
February 2015
PPDA
February 2015
Accounting Officer and Head PDU Accounting Officer
Head PDU
Accounting Officer
User Departments Accounting Officer February 2015 and Head PDU
Page | 25
APPENDIX A: DETAILED CASE BY CASE ANALYSIS HIGH RISK CASES Date of Review:5th August 2014
Case: 5 Provider: M/s DSB Holdings Ltd Amount : UGX 167,374,032 Risk Rating: Contract: Completion of Bukwa ASTU Estimate: UGX 167,374,032 Zonal Headquarters Method: ODB Contract Date : 21st January 2014 Reference No. Contract UPF/WRKS/12-13/00107 Manager: Contract Background On 30th September 2011, the PCC cancelled 3 tenders with M/s Katiti Enterprises one of which was ASTU Zonal HQ in Bukwa. On 16 th February 2013, a new procurement process was initiated and approved by the Accounting Officer on 20th February 2013 at an estimate of UGX 167,374,032. Scope of Works: External, Electrical Mechanical and Construction Exceptions Proposed contract is ad measurement yet scope of works is clear, should have been lump sum Program of works was required within 7 days of delivery of LOBA, however this was not provided. Derailment of procurement schedule: evaluation of bids was slated for 29 th April 2013 – 10th May 2013. However, evaluation was finalised on 26th July 2013 One month delay between expiry of NOBEB and request for SG approval of contract on 19th November 2013 The Accounting Officer did not commit funds to the project There are no contract management records on file The user department did not nominate a contract manager for approval by the Accounting Officer and thus there was no contract implementation plan prepared to assist in contract monitoring Drawings are not included in the Statement of Requirements There is no evidence that 10% performance security was furnished to the entity. Procurement process took one year to complete Contract was signed in January 2014 but there has been no action taken on the project since. Date of Review: 25th July 2014
Case: 2 Provider: M/s Sammy J Ltd UGX 178,352,012 Risk Rating: Amount UGX 178,352,012 Contract: Completion of ASUTU Estimate Zonal Headquarters at Napak Method: ODB Contract Date 16/01/2014 Reference No. Commissioner Contract UPF/WRKS/12-13/00106 Manager: Construction
of
Police
Page | 26
Contract Background On 15th February 2013, the Director, Logistics and Engineering wrote to the Accounting Officer informing him that the original contract awarded to M/s Ayemo Investments Ltd at UGX 162, 138,947 was cancelled by the PCC and the structure was at ground slab level. He further informed the Accounting Officer that the balance on the Letter of Credit (vis M/s Ayemo) at UGX 207,413,000 was sufficient for completion of the works and hence initiated a new procurement process. Exceptions The requirement was not on the procurement plan for FY 2013/14. Contract type was ad measurement with no justification The qualification requirement for a Project Manager was at the least, a Bachelor’s Degree in Civil Engineering or Architecture. However, the Project Manager proposed by M/s Sammy J’s (BEB) had a Diploma in Business Studies, which means the bidder was noncompliant but was accepted. No clear justification was given. The procurement process took one year between initiation and contract signing; no justification for the delay was on file. Performance bond of 10% was not executed The Accounting Officer did not appoint a contract manager meaning no specific staff member was responsible for day to day monitoring on the contract implementation plan. There is no documentation detailing management and monitoring of the contract and evidence of contract payment. Date of Review: 29th July 2014
Case: 25 Provider: M/s Aston International Ltd (BEB) Amount : UGX 180,000,000 Risk Rating: Contract: Training Gumboots UGX 200,000,000 Estimate: Method: RDB Contract Date : 22nd July 2014 Reference No. UPF/SUPLS/2013-14/00119 Contract Manager: Contract Background The procurement of Training Gumboots was initiated by the user department on 26 th March 2014 and confirmed by AO on 27th March 2014 at an estimate of UGX 200,000,000 Exceptions The procurement was conducted outside the procurement plan Delay in evaluation of bids. According to the procurement schedule, evaluation of bids was slated for 23rd -24th May 2014 but it was done up to 10th June 2014. EC did not request for an extension of the evaluation period from the AO. There was delay in the procurement process; the contract was supposed to be placed by 16th June 2014 as provided in the SBD but by 30th July the SG approval had not been secured. The bid validity in the SBD was wrongly stated as 120 working days. The law requires that it should be stated in terms of the date, month and the year Date of Review: 15th 8 2014 Risk Rating: Contract: Supply of One Saloon Car
Case: 10 Provider: M/s Motor care (u) Ltd Amount : UGX 68,929,050 Page | 27
Estimate: Contract Date : Contract Manager:
UGX
Method: Open Domestic Bidding Reference No.UPF/SUPLS/2013/2014/00020 Exceptions Confirmation of funds by AO took long i.e. 9 working days from the date of initiation to approval No notification of contracts award notice on the notice board There was no evidence to show that the AO committed funds to the procurement There was no contract management documentation on file e.g. goods received note, delivery note, and inspection report. There was no contract on file There was no appointment of the contract manager and as such there was no contract implementation plan Date of Review: 6th August 2014
Case: 9 Provider: None Amount : Risk Rating: Contract: Completion of 2 Estimate: accommodation blocks at Koboko Police Barracks Method: ODB Contract Date : Reference No. Contract UPF/WRKS/13-14/00013 Manager:
UGX 270,142,318
No contract on file Director, Logistics Engineering
and
Page | 28
Exceptions On 29th July 2013, the Director Logistics and Engineering wrote to the AO informing him that the contract for construction of 2 accommodation blocks at Koboko Police Barracks awarded to M/s Mata Contractors Ltd had expired before the contractor could complete the works. In that same communication, he reduced the scope of works to remove solar power connections and boreholes because those utilities were available in the vicinity. With the Accounting Officer’s approval, a new procurement process commenced and the tender was advertised in the Newvision newspaper. On 21st October 2013, the HPDU wrote to Head, User Department (Dir. L&E) informing him that the PCC had deferred the request to approve the procurement process because they needed clarification on the following matters: a) Final Account / Valuation of works executed at the time of contract expiry b) Any obligations of UPF or contractor pending c) Possibility of recovering funds from performance security d) Value of retention fee and possibility of recovery. However, such clarification was not forthcoming The Procurement and Disposal Unit informed the Authority that the procurement process had been abandoned and that the Police Force had embarked on the construction works themselves. There was no documentation on file evidencing official cancellation of the procurement process nor was there documentation on the takeover of the project by the Uganda Police Force personnel. Date of Review: 6th August 2014
Case: 3 Provider: None Amount : Risk Rating: Contract: Completion of Lapono and Estimate: UGX 265,001,038 Orom ASTU Zonal Headquarters Method: ODB Contract Date : No contract on file Reference No. Director, Logistics and Contract UPF/WRKS/12-13/00109 Manager: Engineering Contract Background The contract for construction of ASTU HQ at Lapono in Pader District and Orom in Kitgum District awarded to M/s Kanyangareng Amalgamated Agencies was terminated by the Police Contracts Committee. On 15th February 2013, the Director Logistics and Engineering wrote to the Accounting Officer informing him that an assessment of works had been conducted and an additional UGX 146,098,596 was needed to supplement the balance of UGX 118,902,442 on the Letter of Credit.
Page | 29
Exceptions The issued bid document was not on file thus the audit team was not in position to gauge the appropriateness of the evaluation methodology and criteria or effectiveness of SCC The Evaluation Committee did not make a recommendation to the Contracts Committee in their report, merely stated that they would not be proceeding with evaluation There is no record of Contracts Committee approval of evaluation report On 26th August 2013, HPDU wrote to AO informing him of the CC decision to re-tender the procurement, however no such decision is available on file The Procurement and Disposal Unit informed the Authority that the procurement process had been abandoned and that the Police Force had embarked on the construction works themselves. There was no documentation on file evidencing official cancellation of the procurement process nor was there documentation on the takeover of the project by the Uganda Police Force personnel. Date of Review: 13th August 2014
Case: 32 Provider: M/s Ahadi Consortium Risk Rating: Amount: Contract: Provision of Serviced Police Estimate: Accommodation for Uganda Police Force under PPP Method: RIB Contract Date: Reference No: UPF/WRKS/10-11/00005 Contract Manager Contract Background The requirement was for Public Private Partnership for the Design, Construction and Finance of Serviced Accommodation for Uganda Police Force and Design, Construction, Finance, Management, Maintenance and Operation of Commercial Developments on Uganda Police Force Land in Kampala, Entebbe and Masindi. Exceptions There were no valuations done on the project and thus the total cost was not established There is no evidence of Contracts Committee approval of bid document, evaluation committee and procurement method at the Expression of Interest stage. On 7th January 2011, an addendum ran in the Newvision reminding interested bidders that the closing date for submission of bids was extended from 14 th December 2010 to 11th January 2011. However, this addendum was late and there is no evidence of CC approval of the same. Bids were received on 11th July 2011 from M/s Fangda, EVG-3D Construction System (Uganda) Ltd, ACMIRS, Akright and Ahadi. CC did not witness receipt of bids. There is no information on file on the evaluation of EOI. On 7th March 2011, Fangda, ACMIRS, Akright and Ahadi were shortlisted to participate in procurement and the shortlist was displayed on notice board. After this, the procurement reference number changed to UPF/WRKS/11-12/00005. Request for Proposal prepared in April 2011 (closing on 26th September 2011 at 12:00) but there is no initiation of procurement on file. There is no evidence on file of Contract Committee approval of bid document, procurement method and evaluation committee. Page | 30
A letter from HPDU to AO on 28th November 2011 informing him that at a 25th November 2011 meeting, the PCC approved the EC to evaluate RFP – there is no evidence of such approval on file.
Date of Review: 1/8/14 Risk Rating: Contract: Procurement of Farm Input Equipments Method: Restricted Bidding Reference No. UPF/SUPLS/201314/00136
Case: 22 Provider : ETC Agro tractors Amount : UGX 118,922,355 UGX 178,000,000 Estimate: Contract Date Taken for signing Deputy Director-welfare Directorate Contract Manager:
Exceptions The procurement was not on plan There was a variance between the estimated value and contract value worth UGX 59,077,645 which was 33% above the estimate value There was no evidence of a bid security worth UGX 2,000,000 as stated in the solicitation document on file. Date of Review: 1/8/14 Risk Rating: Contract: Hotel services for the Rwandan National Police / Uganda Police training retreat Method: Open Domestic Bidding Reference No. UPF/SRVCS/13-14/00058
Case: 19 Provider : M/s Colline Hotel Amount : UGX 11,750,000 UGX 17,228,000 Estimate: Contract Date : Contract Manager:
Not seen Director Human Resource and Administration
Exceptions The procurement was not on plan This procurement took six months. It was initiated on 30 th September 2013 and NOBEB was displayed 11th Feb 2014. No reasons for delay in the process were provided. Furthermore the Entity did not provide a contract or LPO to the audit team No evidence of the Contracts Committee approval for the evaluation report seen on file There is a variance between the contract value and estimated value worth UGX 5,478,000 which is 28% below the estimated value No evidence / communication from M/s Colline Hotel that the retreat took place as agreed No payment records seen on file Date of Review: 1/8/14 Risk Rating: Contract: Completion of Kaberamaido Police Station and 2 no. accommodation blocks Method: Open Domestic Bidding Reference No. UPF/WRKS/1213/00108
Case: 4 Provider : M/s Alma Connexious (U) Ltd Amount : UGX 275,550,000 UGX 275,550,000 Estimate: Contract Date : Contract Manager:
1st July 2014 Not seen
Page | 31
Exceptions The procurement was not on plan Muhekamu Enterprises Ltd bid was received on 23/04/2013 as evidenced on the PP Form 34 even though they weren’t issued a solicitation document as evidenced on PP Form 30 Out of four bidders recorded to have participated only a copy of the bid submitted by Alma Connexious (U) Ltd was on file making it hard to confirm the correctness of the outcome of the evaluation process. There was delay in the evaluation process, the planned schedule indicated that the process was to start from 29th April and conclude on 10th May 2013, however the process was completed on 26/7/13 and this shows that there was a delay 10 weeks. No evidence of appointment of a contract manager, therefore there is no contract implementation plan No evidence of that the 5% Performance Security required in the SCC was executed. No proof the works were executed to completion since no certificate of completion were provided No payment documents seen on file Date of Review: 5/8/14
Case: 12
Risk Rating: Provider: Ms D.A Komurubuga & Co. Ltd Contract: Completion of Abim Police Amount UGX 442,168,497 Station UGX 444,406,544 Estimate Method: Open Domestic Bidding 12th march 2014 Contract Date Reference No. UPF/SUPLS/2012-13/00094 Contract Manager Not seen Exceptions The procurement was not on plan There was delay in the evaluation process, the schedule stated that the process was planned to start on 29th April 2013 to 10th may 2014, however the evaluation was concluded on 26th July 2014 No evidence of appointment of Contract Manager seen on file No evidence of execution of performance security worth 10% Date of Review: 4/8/14 Case: 39 Risk Rating: Provider : M/s Doticom (U) Ltd Contract: Supply of ICT requirements Amount : UGX 95,000,000 for IGP’s Office UGX 97,700,000 Estimate: Method: Request for Quotation Contract Date Not seen : Reference No. UPF/SPLS/13-14/00139 Contract The Director ICT Manager:
Page | 32
Exceptions There was a 2 week delay in the procurement requisition stage, whereby the User department initiated on 5/5/14 and the AO confirmed the availability of funds on 19/5/14. CC approval for evaluation committee, shortlist, method and SBD not seen. There was delay in the evaluation process, the evaluation was planned to start on 29 th April to 4th May as indicated on the planned schedule. However, the evaluation delayed up to 30th May 2014 There is no contract document attached on file No evidence of appointment of a contract manager seen on file No evidence that the equipment was delivered since the delivery note was not attached on file Goods received note is not attached on file No evidence of CC approval for the evaluation report seen No payment records seen Date of Review: 5/8/14 Risk Rating: Contract: Procurement of Maize Seed & Fertilizers for Kabalye PTS-Masindi Method: Reference No. UPF/SUPLS/2012-13/00014
Case: 30 Provider : M/s Farm inputs Care Centre Amount : UGX 36,770,000 UGX 39,120,000 Estimate: Contract Date : Not on file The commandant Police Contract Manager: Training School-Kabalye
Exceptions The Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder was displayed for 6 working days instead of 10 working days as required by RDB. No evidence of a contract /LPO No evidence of payment records seen No evidence of delivery of the fertilizers since the delivery note is not on file No evidence that the performance guarantee worth 10% of the contract value was executed Date of Review: 4/8/2014 Risk Rating: Contract: Assorted Police Forms & Books Method: Quotation Bidding Reference No. UPF/SPLS/13-14/00133
Case: 38 Provider :M/s Gamut Investment Ltd Amount : UGX 49,721,000 UGX 56,850,000 Estimate: Contract Date : The Director Criminal Contract Manager: Investigation & Intelligence Directorate
Exceptions There was no contract on file There were no contact management documents on file i.e. delivery note and tax invoice The contract manager did not prepare an implementation plan There was no contract monitoring by user department Page | 33
Date of Review: 1st/8/2014 Risk Rating: Contract: Purchase of Containers
Case: 6 Provider: M/s International Security Systems (U) Amount : UGX 32,600,000 UGX 33,000,000 Estimate: Contract Date : 16/4/2012 The Ag. Commissioner of Contract Manager: Police / Logistics & Supplies
Method: RDB Reference No.UPF/SUPLS/2013/2014/00006 Exceptions No CC approval for shortlist of bidders, procurement method and evaluation committee Display of NOBEB was supposed to be from 12th to 30th September 2013, however it ran from 1st to 8th October 2013 There was no commitment of funds by the AO There was no contract document on file thus the audit team was unable to verify that delivered items complied with entity specifications, to gauge efficiency of procurement process from initiation to contract signing and to ascertain whether the provider conformed to terms and conditions of contract. No implementation plan drafted by Contract Manager There were no Contract Management Documents on file i.e. delivery note, inspection report and no goods received note on file Date of Review: 1st August 2014
Case: 17 Provider: M/s Uganda Associated Stationers Ltd Amount : UGX 25,429,000 Risk Rating: Contract: Amended Police Forms for Estimate: UGX 30,000,000 CIID Method: RFQ Contract Date : Reference No. Contract UPF/SUPLS/13-14/00054 Manager: Exceptions There was no evidence of contract management and monitoring: delivery notes, goods received notes, inspection report There were no payment records on file There was no contract on file. There was no evidence of AO’s commitment of funds to the project. There was no contract manager appointed and thus no contract implementation plan was prepared. Date of Review: 1st August 2014
Case: 35 Provider: M/S Little Ritz in Africa. Amount : UGX 42,000,000 Risk Rating: Contract: Lunch for the Launch of Estimate: UGX 40,000,000 Community Policing Method: RFQ Contract Date : Agreement was not on file
Page | 34
Reference No. UPF/SPLS/13-14/00116
Contract Manager:
Contract Background Procurement of Lunch for the Launch of Community Policing concept in partnership with prominent Artists Exceptions There was neither LPO nor agreement on file. There was no SBD on file The amount spent was higher than the estimate in the budget. Three bidders invited did not appear on the prequalification list. Date of Review: 01st August 2014
Case: 29 Provider: M/s MFI Document Solutions Ltd Amount : UGX 59,500,001.40 Risk Rating: Contract: 2 Multifunctional Printers for Estimate: UGX 63,000,000 Police Headquarters Method: RDB Contract Date : 6th February 2014 Reference No. UPF/SUPLS/2013-14/00071 Contract Manager: Contract Background Procurement of two Multifunctional Printers for Police Headquarters was initiated by the used dept on 22nd October 2013, AO confirmed funds on 29th October 2013 and Restrictive method was used in acquisition of the supplies. Exceptions Procurement was not on plan MFI Document Solution Ltd and COPY CAT were not on the prequalification list for supply of printers. Contract was awarded to a firm that was not on prequalification list NOBEB was displayed for 7 days instead of 10 SG Cleared the contract on 17th March 2014 but the contract agreement was signed on 6th February 2014. Date of Review: 6th August 2014
Case: 27 Provider: M/s China Nanjing International Ltd Amount : UGX 985,960,956 Risk Rating: Contract: Construction of CIID Estimate: UGX 985,960,956 Headquarters on Plots 42-49, Katalina Road (Variation) Method: ODB Contract Date 27th May 2013 (Amendment) : Reference No. Laban Muhabwe Contract UPF/WRKS/11-12/00003 Manager:
Page | 35
Contract Background On 12th August 2011, the UPF called for bids for Phase 2 of Construction of CIID HQ in the Daily Monitor. Initiation was on 9th July 2011, approval on 14th July 2011 at an estimate of UGX 6,866,275,315. The contract was awarded to China Nanjing International at UGX 7,044,887,041 on 15th November 2011. On 27 th March 2013, the Accounting Officer approved a procurement requisition for Extra works for completion of CIID Headquarters at an estimate of UGX 985,960,956 (14% of contract price). The variation was approved by PCC on 28 th March 2013. Exceptions No evidence that Advance Payment Security of 15% was executed by the Contractor. No evidence that Performance Security of 10% was executed. There was a variation for construction of a lift shaft worth UGX 89,361,000 in the request for extra works approved by the Accounting Officer on 27 th March 2013. However, this particular requirement seems to have been part of an earlier variation approved by the Contracts Committee at a cost of UGX 95,122,750 on 9th August 2012. Such an action would mean double payment for the same item. Similarly it is also likely that granite tiles had the same issue of double payment. They had been provided for in the first variation at UGX 56,432,320 and approved yet again at UGX 56,202,000 It was noted that the Director Logistics and Engineering requested for a 6 months contract extension on 19th June 2013. However the AO instructed the PDU to submit the request to PCC for approval after 3 months on 24th September 2013 when the running contract had only 6 days to expiry. There was no evidence of contract extension meaning that there was a strong possibility that the contractor continued offering services after contract expiry. There were no contract management records MEDIUM RISK CASES Date of Review: 30/7/14 Risk Rating: Contract: Tyres for Gilas deployed in Somalia under FPU Method: Open Domestic bidding Reference No. UPF/SUPLS/2013-14/00012
Case: 13 Provider : Ms Arrow Centre (U) Ltd Amount : UGX 355,538,070 UGX 225,000,000 Estimate: Contract Date 13th December 2013 Deputy Director Contract Manager: Management
Fleet
Exceptions The procurement was not on plan There was delay in the evaluation process whereby evaluation of bids was concluded on 10th October 2013, 9 days later than the scheduled 27th September 2013 There was a 39% variance between the estimated value and the contract value worth UGX 100,538,070 which is a sign that there was no assessment of market price prior to commencement of the procurement process. Date of Review: 30th July 2014 Risk Rating:
Case: 8 Provider:
M/s Infrastructure Forum
Design Page | 36
Contract: Consultancy Services for the Estimate: Completion of CIID Headquarters, Amount : Naguru. Method: Direct Contract Date
UGX 351,972,642 UGX 351,763,299 20th November 2013
Reference No: UPF/SRVCS/12- Contract Director, Logistics and 13/00066 Manager: Engineering Contract Background On 18th November 2012, AIGP Godfrey Bangirana, the Director of Logistics and Engineering wrote to the Accounting Officer informing him that the contract with M/s ID Forum had expired. The firm had continued to provide services to UPF beyond their previous contract. The Director wished to formalise the arrangement between UPF and the Firm and thus suggested to engage the Direct Procurement method. On 6 th August 2013, the Authority gave the Entity a go-ahead to use DP and requested UPF to submit a report to PPDA within 10 working days after contract award and signature. Scope of Works: Design Review, Construction Supervision and Post Construction Supervision Exceptions There was an unexplained delay of three (3) months between CC recommendation to seek for waiver from PPDA in November 2012 and sending the request to PPDA in February 2013. The Entity was not entering data on the PPMS and the HPDU had not complied with AO’s request to prepare a response to the Authority’s earlier communication which had urged the Entity to enter data onto PPMS. UPF failed to comply with PPDA’s requirement to submit a report on the progress of the procurement within 10 working days from contract award and signature. The Director Logistics and Engineering who was appointed contract manager on 26 th September 2013 did not prepare a contract implementation plan meaning there was no effective contract monitoring. It was noted that the process delayed for 9 months between initiation and evaluation and no justification was on file. There is no evidence of contract management in form of site reports, inspection reports, and construction progress reports. Date of Review: 24/7/14 Risk Rating: Contract: Procurement of 12 Double Cabin Pickups and their fast Moving parts for CIID offices under PRDP 13/14 Method: Open Domestic bidding Reference No. UPF/SUPLS/2013-14/00023
Case: 23 Provider : Ms Toyota Uganda Ltd Amount : UGX 1,004,506,076 UGX 1,140,000,000 Estimate: Contract Date : Contract Manager:
19th May 2013 Director Logistics Engineering
&
Page | 37
Exceptions Performance guarantee worth 5% of the contract value was not submitted by bidders as indicated in the SBD The Notice of the Best Evaluated bidder was displayed for 5working days from 4 th December 2013 to 11th December 2013 instead of 10 working days No contract implementation plan on file, this could be due to the fact that the Director did not nominate a specific staff member to do monitoring and drawing of plans and keeping records. Date of Review: 31/7/14 Risk Rating:
Case: 15 Provider: Lot1: Cooper Motors Corporation Lot2: Akamba (U) ltd Contract: Procurement of Lot1-One Amount : Lot 1: UGX 62,017,500 Double Cabin and Lot 2- Two tractors ($24,807) Lot 2: UGX 175,537,744.69 UGX 237,555,244.69 UGX 500,000,000 Estimate: Method: Open Domestic Bidding Contract Date : 26th May 2014 Reference No. UPF/SUPLS/2013-14/00034 Contract Director Logistics and Manager: Engineering Contract Background The description of the requirements was as follows: Procurement of farm tractor at UGX 147,000,0000, Procurement of farm tractor 2WD at UGX 92,000,000, Procurement of 3 Disc Ploughs at UGX 21,600,000, Procurement of 4 disc ploughs at UGX 25,785,000 and Procurement of 20 Disc Harrow at UGX 37,260,000, Procurement of planters comp at UGX 81,000,000, Procurement of 1 Double Cabin Pickup at UGX 88,000,000, fast moving parts for 4WD tractor at UGX 3,677,500 and fast moving parts for UGX 3,677,500 Exceptions There was delay in the evaluation process. Evaluation of bids was planned to take place from 25th November – 6th December 2013 but it was concluded on 6th January 2014, one month later with no justification. There was a variance between the estimated value (UGX 239,000,000) and the contract value (UGX 175,537,744.69) for the procurement of 2 tractors worth UGX 63,462,255.31 which is 26.5% below the estimated value. There is no approval by the AO for the re- evaluation which extended up to 19/2/14 hence delay in the process No contract implementation plan was provided on file No payment records on file There is no evidence that the required performance guarantee of 5% was executed by the bidder Date of Review: 1/8/14 Risk Rating: Contract: Office Cabinets for CIID Method: Restricted Bidding
Case: 16 Provider : M/s Supply Masters Amount : UGX 34,220,000 UGX 32,500,000 Estimate: Contract Date : 15/5/2014 Page | 38
Reference No. UPF/SUPLS/2013-14/00053 Contract Not seen Manager: Exceptions No contract manager was nominated which could have led to lack of contract management records on file No payment records attached on file No evidence of the required performance bond of 5% of the contract value was executed. Date of Review: 4/8/14 Risk Rating: Contract: Supply of Sports Wear Equipment Method: Restricted Bidding Reference No. UPF/SUPLS/13-14/00065
Case: 26 Provider : M/s Nteza Sports Centre Ltd. Amount : UGX 46,197,000 UGX 48,600,000 Estimate: Contract Date : Not seen The Assistant Inspector Contract Manager: General of Police/ Special Duties
Exceptions There was delay from the time of initiation to when the AO confirmed the funds: the procurement was initiated on a Saturday 28/9/13 and the AO confirmed the funds on 16/10/14, i.e. a delay of 14 working days. Though the record of bid opening shows that Nteza Sports submitted bid security worth UGX 5m, there is no evidence of bid security attached in the submitted bid. No evidence of that 5% performance security was executed Date of Review: 5/8/14 Risk Rating: Contract: Procurement of Desktop computers, Projectors and Networking Equipment Method: Restricted bidding Reference No. UPF/SPLS/12-13/00105
Case: 34 Provider : M/s Doticom (U) Ltd Amount : UGX 49,570,000 UGX42,150,000 Estimate: Contract Date Not on file : The Director ICT- Police Hqrts Contract Manager:
Exceptions There was a 3 week delay at the initiation stage, whereby the user department initiated the procurement on 2nd January 2014 and the AO confirmed availability of funds on 22 nd January 2014. Evaluation process delayed for a period of 5 working days since the evaluation ended on 19th March 2013 and it was supposed to be from 10th-12th March 2014 The Notice of Best Evaluated Bidder was displayed for 7 working days instead of 10 working days as required by RDB Performance Guarantee of 10% of the contract value not seen Date of Review: 1/8/14 Case: 7 Provider : M/s Plantek Consultants Risk Rating: Contract: Consultancy Services for Amount : UGX 18,880,000 Page | 39
remodelling plot 44 Windsor Crescent Method: Request for Proposals
UGX 16,804,061. Estimate: Contract Date Not seen : UPF/SRVCS/2013- Contract The Ag. Director Police Medical Manager:
Reference No. 14/00009 Exceptions No Contracts Committee approval for the method, shortlist, evaluation committee and SBD seen on file The bid of Plantek Consultants did not include a valid trading license, certificate of incorporation, VAT registration and evidence of work done. However, the evaluators ranked the firm compliant on the preliminary stage. The proposal of Plantek Consultants did not include the specific experience of 10 years, qualifications and competence of key staff as requested in the bidding document but the firm was found compliant at the technical stage. This calls the experience and capabilities of the evaluators into question. No evidence of Contract manager appointment seen on file
LOW RISK CASES Date of Review: 1st August 2014 Case: 20 Provider: M/s PZL Swidnik S.A. Risk Rating: UGX 59,282,805,450 Contract: Purchase of Two Helicopters and Amount: (USD 23, 248,159) One Aeroplane for Police Air Wing UGX 52,500,000,000 Estimate: (USD 21,000,000) Method: Restricted International Bidding 19th June 2014 Contract Date : Contract Manager: Reference No: UPF/SUPLS/13-14/00091 Contract Background On 16th December 2013, the Head, UD wrote to the AO apprising him of a recent trip to Poland in which a technical team of 3 had evaluated two types of aircraft. He recommended either a classified or a restricted procurement process to save time on vendors and salesmen derailing the process through selfish complaints. He recommended a shortlist of Bell Helicopters Textron Co., AgustaWestland Poland, Agusta Westland Italy and Cessna Textron Company. His recommendations were assented to by the Accounting Officer who ordered the HPDU to begin the procurement process on 24th December 2013. Exceptions The requisition was for two helicopters and one aeroplane. However only one helicopter was on the procurement plan. The second helicopter and the aeroplane worth UGX 30,000,000,000 were not on the approved procurement plan; this could have adverse effect on planned activities or lead to huge domestic arrears. There was a 108% variance between the planned (UGX 10,778,000,000) and estimated (UGX 22,500,000,000) amounts of one helicopter worth UGX 11,722,000,000. Bid Document was lacking: the technical specifications and general requirements in the bid document did not concisely spell out the needs of the Entity as evidenced by Page | 40
numerous requests for clarification from the bidders citing the statement of requirements. The bid document did not specify a delivery period nor payment schedule. There is a 32% variance between estimated amount ($18M or UGX 45BN) and contract amount ($23.2M or UGX 59.3BN) No evidence of bid security on file. There is no evidence of Contracts Committee approval of the contract document. Request for advance payment of $4.6M on 12th June 2014 before the advance payment guarantee was furnished to UPF. SCC in contract differs from bid document Bid Document Contract price shall be fixed price adjustment according to interest paid on the basis of reducing balance performance security at 10% performance security shall be reduced to 5% during warranty period The contract states that a Letter of Bid Acceptance shall form part of contract, a requirement that was invalidated by the amended Regulations, 2014. There was no contract manager appointed to this tender and thus no contract implementation plan was drawn up. Consequently, there are no records evidencing contract management on file. The contract did not specify a delivery period.
Date of Review: 29/7/14 Risk Rating: Contract: Procurement of Spares, Tyres, Tubes, Batteries, Acid, Distilled Water Tarpaulins, Crew Seat repair and panel beating materials under Frame work contract Method: Open Domestic bidding Reference No. UPF/SUPLS/13-14/00113
Case: 21 Provider : N/A Amount : Estimate:
Contract Date : Contract Manager:
On going UGX 3,000,000,000
N/A N/A
Exceptions This procurement was at evaluation stage; however the audit team noted a significant variance between the amount in the approved plan which was UGX 1,430,000,000 and the estimated amount of UGX 3,000,000,000 indicated by the User Department on the PP Form 5. It was not clear whether there was an adjustment in the Entity budget by UGX 1,570,000,000 without updating the procurement plan. Date of Review: 5/8/14 Risk Rating: Contract: Procurement of Five (5) Off road Motorcycles and their fast moving parts Method: Restricted bidding
Case: 14 Provider : Nile Fishing Amount : UGX 43,830,000 UGX 47,500,000 Estimate: Contract Date
12/05/2014
Page | 41
Reference 13/00038
No.
UPF/SUPLS/2012- Contract Manager
Director Logistics and Engineering
Exceptions There was delay in the evaluation process whereby the time proposed in the invitation was 6th-8thNovember 2013. However the evaluation extended up to 19th November 2013 After CC approval for retender the PDU did not shortlist the new firms as requested instead solicitation documents were re-issued to the same firms. Date of Review: 4th August 2014 Risk Rating: Contract: Speed Guns Method: OBD Reference No. UPF/SUPLS/13-14/00087
Case: 31 Provider: American Marketing Consultants Amount : UGX117,596,240 UGX 110,000,000 Estimate: Contract Date : Not yet signed Nil Contract Manager:
Contract Background Procurement of 4 Speed Gun was initiated on 28th October 2013 and the AO confirmed funds on 28th October 2013. Exceptions Delay in the procurement process: the procurement was initiated on 28 th October 2013, but the contract was signed on 25th August indicating an 11 month delay. The evaluation of bids was supposed to be done from 27th to 31st January 2014 but was concluded on 5th May 2014 and the team neither give reasons for the delay nor sought an extension of evaluation period from the AO. Date of Review: 5/8/2014 Risk Rating:
Case: 36 Provider:
Contract: Fertilizers for 1st Season of FebJune 2014 Method: Restricted Bidding Reference No. UPF/SPLS/2013-14/00117
Amount : Estimate: Contract Date : Contract Manager:
M/s Farm Inputs Centre (FICA) Ltd UGX 70,011900 69,900,000 The Director Production
Care
Welfare
&
Exceptions The User Department did not appoint a Contract Manager for the project and thus there was no contract management plan drawn up to monitor performance of the contract. Date of Review: 30th July 2014
Case: 28 Provider: Mr. Herman Semakula & M/s St Joseph College. Amount : UGX 9,600,000,000 Risk Rating: Contract: Purchase of Land at Estimate: UGX 9,600,000,000 Kitende-Wakiso District Method: Direct Contract Date : 24th June 2014
Page | 42
Reference No. UPF/SUPLS/13-14/00151
Contract Manager:
Director, Logistics and Engineering
Contract Background On 28th May 2014, the PS – MOLHUD informed the IGP that a market survey of the land in question including buildings and improvements yielded a price of UGX 10,145,000,000. On 11 th June 2014, the Director Human Rights and Legal Services wrote to AO informing him that the land owner had approached UPF with an offer to sell the land at UGX 9.6bn. The property, he said, was ideal for establishing a National Police Senior Staff College. Exceptions The Accounting Officer did not provide the Entity’s commitment to fund the project prior to contract signing. The contract manager did not prepare a contract implementation plan for contract monitoring and management. Date of Review: 4th August 2014 Risk Rating: Contract: E-citation System for EPS Method: RDB Reference No: UPF/SUPLS/13-14/00052
Case: 1 Provider: M/s Syntech Associates (BEB) Amount: UGX 3,330,463,600 Estimate: UGX 3,465,500,000 Contract Date: Contract Manager: Director, ICT
Contract Background On 26th May 2014, M/s CWG Uganda wrote to the HPDU citing extensive breach of the evaluation process wherein M/s Syntec Associates’s proposal to amend their bid (after bid opening) was accepted by Uganda Police Force. On 28th May 2014, the procurement process was cancelled at the instigation of the Accounting Officer against M/s CWG’s complaint. On 25 th July 2014, the procurement process was suspended by the Authority Exceptions The bid document did not specify a delivery period / schedule Section L of the Bid Submission Sheet states, “we understand that this bid, together with your written acceptance thereof included in your Letter of Bid Acceptance, shall constitute a binding contract between us, until a formal contract is prepared and executed.” The Letter of Bid Acceptance has been invalidated by the Regulations, 2014. The specifications for the 6 Desktop computers are for the DELL brand Bidding period was too short: only 5 working days yet RDB statutory period is 12 working days There is no evidence to suggest that the Entity sought a waiver from the Authority before Contracts Committee approval of Restricted Bidding Form 13 – Declaration to abide by the Code of Ethical Conduct in Business, signed by the Evaluation Committee is not dated Inappropriate evaluation criterion – at commercial evaluation, the evaluators used a criterion of 60 working days’ delivery period which had not been specified in the bid document At evaluation, M/s CWG scored 0 marks on verification of permit information yet minutes from the Proof of Concept meeting indicate that the device was able to return verification of permit information Page | 43
At evaluation, M/s One Park was deemed non-compliant on the criterion of evidence of completion of similar supplies with government entity or reputable organization in last 3 years despite a 17th December 2013 letter from the Johannesburg Metropolitan Police detailing the achievements of M/s Traffic Management Technologies, their subcontractor. At Technical Evaluation – 2b for hardware, M/s Syntech Associates was deemed compliant on the specification for 2 SAM slots (interfaces) and yet their proposed device had only 1 SAM slot as indicated by the manufacturer, Motorola. The evaluators did not carry out post qualification evaluation as required under Technical Compliance Selection The procurement was delayed by various mistakes at evaluation leading to award of the contract at two separate occasions to a non-responsive bidder – M/s Syntech Associates. On 10th July 2014, the application for administrative review by M/s CWG was rejected by UPF. A reason for rejection was the contention that the requirement of 2 SAM slots on the device was not mandatory, however, this was not spelled out in the bid document NOBEB displayed for only 6 working days contrary to Reg. 5 (1) of the PPDA (Contracts) Regulations, 2014
SATISFACTORY CASES Date of Review: 30/7/14 Risk Rating: Contract: Procurement of 5 Double Cabin Pick-ups and their fast Moving parts Method: Open Domestic Bidding Reference No. UPF/SUPLS/2013-14/00033
Case: 33 Provider : Toyota Uganda Ltd Amount : UGX 430,768,154 UGX 478,489,600 Estimate: Contract Date : 24th February 2014 Director Logistics Contract Manager: Engineering
&
Exceptions None Date of Review: 30/7/14 Risk Rating:
Case: 24 Provider : Lot1: M/s Visible Investments Ltd Lot2: M/s TTB Investments Ltd Contract: Customised Police Dairies and Amount : Lot1: UGX 150,450,000 Calenders 2014 Lot2: UGX 16,815,000 UGX 200,000,000 Estimate: Method: Open Domestic Bidding Contract Date : 20th January 2014 Reference No. UPF/SUPLS/2013-14/00028 Contract The Commissioner of Police Manager: Press and Public relations officer Exceptions None Date of Review: 4/8/14 Risk Rating: Contract: Stationery
for
Case: 37 Provider : M/s Mowi General Supplies Police Amount : UGX 89,820,000
Page | 44
Trainees and FFU Special Brigade Method: Request for Quotation Reference No. UPF/SPLS/13-14/00120
Estimate: Contract Date Contract Manager:
UGX 93,000,000 Not seen The Ag. Commissioner Police/Logistics & Supplies
of
Exception There was delay at the requisition stage, whereby the first Form 5 was raised on 24 th March 2014 and the second was raised 5 th may 2014. This indicates that PDU delayed to start on the first requisition since it took a period of 2 months without action taken to receive the second one. It took a period of two weeks from the time when the user department initiated the procurement to when the AO confirmed the availability of funds, this is where Bamunoba Ubaldo initiated the procurement on 5th May 2014 and the AO confirmed funds on 20th May 2014. Date of Review: 5/8/14 Risk Rating:
Case: 40 Provider: M/s Marliza Investments Ltd and Lamen ways Investments Contract: Procurement of Basic Amount : Frame work contract Veterinary drugs & Accessories for the Estimate: UGX 45,100,000 Veterinary Dispensary for Frame Work Contract for Quarters 2,3&4 of 2013-14 Method: RDB Contract Date : 18/08/2014 Reference No. UPF/SPLS/12-13/00061 The Commandant Canine Unit Contract Manager: Exceptions No evidence of execution of performance security worth 5% of contract value Date of Review: 1st/8/2014 Risk rating: Contract: Supply of Furniture For Forensic Laboratory Board Room Risk Rating: Method: Quotations Bidding Reference No. UPF/SUPLS/13-14/00056
Case:18 Provider: M/s Footsteps Furniture Ltd Amount : 25,990,000 Estimate: Contract Date : Contract Manager:
26,000,000
Exceptions: None Date of Review: 6/8/2014 Contract: Sports Equipment Risk Rating: Method: Quotation Bidding Reference No. UPF/SUPLS/201314/00066
Case:11 Provider: M/s Hinkas Sports Centre Ltd Amount : UGX 27,355,000 Estimate: 14/03/2014 Contract Date : Contract Manager: The Director Special Duties
Page | 45
Exceptions None APPENDIX B: ENTITY BUDGET The financial performance of the Entity for the FY 2013/2014 was as follows: Table 12: Entity’s budget and performance Budget Estimate Value in UGX Recurrent Budget Estimates - Wage 186,489,000,000 Recurrent Budget Estimates – Non Wage 67,195,000,000 Development Budget Estimates 61,664,000,000 Donor funding 16,552,000,000 1 Overall Entity Budget 331,900,000,000 Total Procurement Budget for the FY 2013/2014 124,752,338,012 Value of contracts audited 81,593,173,160 Procurement budget as % age of overall Entity’s budget 37.5% Audited as percentage of Total Entity Budget 24.6% Audited as percentage of Procurement Budget 65.4 % APPENDIX C: RISK RATING TABLE High Risk Relates to but not limited to significant Law & Regulatory violations such as:Area Implication Planning: Lack of or failure to procure This implies emergencies and use of the direct within the approved plan procurement method which affects competition and value for money. Bidding Process: Use of This implies use of less competitive methods wrong/inappropriate procurement methods, which affects transparency, accountability and failure to seek Contracts Committee value for money. approvals and usurping the powers of the PDU. Evaluation: Use of inappropriate This implies financial loss caused by awarding evaluation methodologies or failure to contracts at higher prices or shoddy work conduct evaluation. caused by failure to recommend award to a responsive bidder. Record Keeping: Missing procurement This implies that one cannot ascertain the files and missing key records on the files audit trail namely; whether there was namely; solicitation document, submitted competition and fairness in the procurement bids, evaluation report and contract. process. Fraud/forgery: Falsification of Documents This implies lack of transparency and value for money. Page | 46
Contract Management: Payment shoddy work or work not delivered
for This implies financial loss since there has been no value for money for the funds spent and the services have not been received by the intended beneficiaries
Medium Risk Relates to but not limited to substantial Policy & Procedure exceptions such as:Area Implication Planning: Lack of initiation of procurements and confirmation of funds. Bidding Process: Deviations from standard procedures namely bidding periods, standard formats, use of PP Forms and records of issue and receipts of bids, usage of non-pre-qualified firms and splitting procurement requirements. Procurement Structures: Lack of procurement structures Record Keeping: Missing Contracts Committee records and incomplete contract management records. Contract and Contract Management: Failure to nominate contract managers, failure to seek the Solicitor General’s approval for contracts above Ugs. 50 million and lack of notices of Best Evaluated Bidders.
This implies committing the Entity without funds thereby causing domestic arrears. This implies lack of efficiency, standardisation and avoiding competition.
This implies lack of independence of functions and powers and interference in the procurement process. This implies that one cannot ascertain the audit trail namely; whether the necessary approvals were obtained in a procurement process. This leads to unjustified contract amendment and variations which lead to unjustified delayed contract completion and lack of value for money. Bidders are not given the right of appeal.
Low Risk Relates to but not limited to minor or inconsequential procedural omission such as: Area Implication Planning: Lack of procurement reference This leads to failure to track the procurements numbers. which leads to poor record keeping. Bidding Process: Not signing the Ethical This leads to failure to declare conflict of Code of Conduct interest and lack of transparency.
Page | 47
Satisfactory Relates to following laid down procurement procedures and guidelines and no significant deviation is identified during the conduct of the procurement process based on the records available at the time.
Page | 48
APPENDIX D: UGANDA POLICE FORCE SAMPLE LIST FOR FY 2013-14 No.
Reference No.
Subject of procurement
Method
Provider
01
UPF/SUPLS/1314/00052 UPF/WRKS/1213/00106 UPF/WRKS/1213/00109
E-citation system for EPS
ODB
Low
Completion of ASUTU Zonal Head Quarters at Napak Completion of Lapono and Orom ASTU Zonal Headquarters Completion of Kaberamaido Police Station Completion of Bukwa ASTU Zonal Headquarters Supply and Delivery of containers –Police Headquarters Consultancy services for Remodeling of Windsor Crescent House into a Cancer Diagnostic Centre Consultancy services for completion of CIID H/Quarters at Naguru Completion of Koboko Police Post One Saloon Car (1500-1800cc) for Interpol SRB Nairobi Sports Equipment
ODB
M/s Syntech Ltd M/s Sammy J Company 178,352,012 Ltd 265,001,038
M/s Alma Connexious (U) 275,550,000 Ltd M/s DSB Holdings Ltd 167,374,032
High
RDB
M/s International Security 32,600,000 Systems
High
RFQ
M/s Plantek Consultants
Medium
DIRECT
M/s Infrastructure Design 351,763,299 Forum
02 03
04 05 06
UPF/WRKS/1213/00108 UPF/WRKS/1213/00107 UPF/SUPLS/2013/2 014/00006
07
UPF/SRVCS/201314/00009
08
UPF/SRVCS/1213/00066
09
UPF/WRKS/1314/00013 UPF/SUPLS/1314/00020 UPF/SUPLS/201314/00066 UPF/WRKS/20122013/00094
10 11 12
ODB
ODB ODB
Contract (UGX) Associates 3,330,463,600
ODB
18,880,000
High High
High
Medium
270,142,318
High
68,927,500
High
ODB
M/s Motorcare (U) Ltd
RFQ
M/s Hinkas Sports Centre 27,355,000 Ltd M/s D.A. Komurubuga 442,168,497
Completion of Abim Police ODB Station
Risk Rating
Satisfactory High
Page | 49
13 14
UPF/SUPLS/1314/00012 UPF/SUPLS/1314/00038
15
UPF/SPLS/201314/00034
16
UPF/SUPLS/1314/00053 UPF/SUPLS/1314/00054
17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24
UPF/SUPLS/1314/00056 UPF/SRVCS/1314/00058
UPF/SUPLS/1314/00091 UPF/SUPLS/1314/00113
UPF/SPLS/1314/00136 UPF/SPLS/1314/00023 UPF/SPLS/201314/00028
Supply and delivery of Tyres for Gilas for FPU in Somalia. Five Off-road Motorcycles and their fast moving parts for Regional Human Rights Offices under JLOS fund Procurement of Lot 1- one (01) D/Cabin Pick-up and Lot 2-Two (2) Tractors Office Cabinets for CIID
ODB
Ms Arrow Centre (U) Ltd
ODB
M/s Nile Company
ODB
M/s Coopers Motors 260,766,954 Corporation (U) Ltd M/s Engineering Solutions M/s Supply Masters Ltd 34,220,000
Medium
Amended Police Forms for CIID under case backlog reduction programme Furniture for Forensic Laboratory Boardroom Hotel Services for the Rwandan National Police/Uganda Police Force Training Retreat Two Helicopters and One Aeroplane Spares, Tyres, Tubes, Batteries, Acid, Distilled water, Tarpaulins, Crew Seats & Panel beating Materials Farm Input Equipments
RFQ
M/s Uganda Stationers
High
RFQ
M/s Footsteps Furniture 25,990,000 Ltd M/s Collins Hotel Mukono 11,750,000
Satisfactory
M/s PZL-Swidnik Augusta 59,282,805,450 Westland 3,000,000,000
Low
M/s ETC Agro Tractors & 116,250,000 Implements Ltd M/s Toyota (U) Ltd 998,943,536
High
M/s Visible Ltd and
Satisfactory
RDB
RFQ
RIB ODB
RDB
Procurement of 12 (Twelve) ODB D/cabin Pick-up and their Fast Moving Parts Procurement of Executive ODB Diaries 2014 and Executive
355,538,070
Finishing 31,750,000
Associated 25,429,000
Investments 167,265,000 M/s TTB
Medium Low
Medium
High
Low
Medium
Page | 50
25 26 27
28 29 30
31 32 33
34 35
36 37
UPF/SPLS/1314/00119 UPF/SUPLS/1314/00065 UPF/WRKS/1112/00003
UPF/SUPLS/1314/00151 UPF/SUPLS/1314/00071 UPF/SUPLS/1213/00014 UPF/SUPLS/1314/00087 UPF/WRKS/1011/00005 UPF/SPLS/201314/00033 UPF/SPLS/1213/00105 UPF/SPLS/1314/00116 UPF/SPLS/201314/00117 UPF/SPLS/1314/00120
Calendars 2014 Training Gumboots
ODB
Sports Wear
RDB
Completion of Police Headquarters of CIID on plots 42-49 Katalima road NaguruKampala Purchase of Land at Kitende– Wakiso District Two multi-functional printers for Police Supply and delivery of Maize seeds and fertilizers
ODB
M/s China International Ltd
RFQ
M/s Ssemakula Herman J
RDB
M/s MFI Document 59,500,001 Solutions Ltd M/s Farm Inputs Care 36,176,000 Centre Ltd
High
Procurement of Speed Guns
ODB
M/s American Marketing 119,600,000 Consultants
Low
Serviced Accommodation under PPP Procurement of 5(Five) D/Cabin Pick-ups & Fast Moving Parts Desktop Computers and Networking Materials Lunch for Launch of Community Policing in Partnership with Artistes Fertilizers for 1st season of Feb-June 2014 Stationery for Police Trainees
OIB
RFQ
Investments Ltd M/s Aston International 180,000,000 Ltd M/s Nteza Sports Centre 13,500,000 Nanjing 985,960,956
9,600,000,000
High Medium Medium
Low
High
High
ODB
M/s Toyota (U) Ltd
425,347,997
Satisfactory
RDB
M/s Doticom
42,150,000
Medium
RDB
M/s Little Ritz Africa
42,000,000
High
RDB
M/s Farm Input Care 70,011,900 Center M/s Mowi General 89,820,000 Supplies Ltd
Low
RFQ
Satisfactory
Page | 51
38 39 40
UPF/SPLS/1314/00133 UPF/SPLS/1314/00139 UPF/SPLS/1213/00061
Assorted Police Forms and Books Procurement of ICT requirements for IGP’s office Basic Veterinary Drugs & Accessories for Veterinary Dispensary
RFQ
M/s Gamut Investment Ltd
49,721,000
High
RFQ
M/s Doticom (U) Ltd
95,000,000
High
FRAME WORK
M/s Marliza Investments 45,100,000 Ltd and Lamen ways Investments
Satisfactory
Page | 52
