Audit Rpt - Fort Portal Municipal Council For FY 2012-2013

Transcription

PUBLIC PROCUREMENT & DISPOSAL OF ASSETS
AUTHORITY
PROCUREMENT AUDIT REPORT OF FORT PORTAL
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012/13
AUGUST 2014
Table of Contents
Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................................
Executive summary ....................................................................................................................................
Chapter one ............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background information ................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Auditee ............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Basic Public Procurement and Disposal Principles ........................................................................ 2
1.4 Specific audit objectives ................................................................................................................. 2
1.5 Scope of Audit ................................................................................................................................ 2
1.6 Limitation of Scope ........................................................................................................................ 2
1.7 Audit Methodology......................................................................................................................... 2
1.8 Meetings and audit report issuance................................................................................................. 3
Chapter two: Institutional Frame Work…………………………………………………………….4
2.1 Key Players ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Chapter three: Summary of Findings on Management of Procurement by Stage ........................... 6
Chapter four: Summary of case by case ............................................................................................. 11
Chapter five:Audit Conclusion and Action Plan ............................................................................... 22
Appendix A: Capacity Building Activities ......................................................................................... 25
Appendix B: Risk Rating Table .......................................................................................................... 25
Appendix C: Sampled Procurements .................................................................................................. 26
Page 1 of 44
Acronyms
AO
CC
EC
FMC
NoBEB
PO
PPDA
PPMS
Reg.
SATC
SBD
TC
TCS
UD
UGX
Accounting Officer
Contracts Committee
Evaluation Committee
Fort Portal Municipal Council
Notice of the Best Evaluated Bidder.
Procurement Officer
Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority
Performance Measurement System
Local Government (PPDA) Regulations, 2006
Senior Assistant Town Clerk
Standard Bidding Document
Town Clerk
Technical Compliance Selection
User Departments
Uganda Shillings
Page 2 of 44
Executive Summary
The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (PPDA) conducted an audit of
procurement and disposal activities of Fort Portal Municipal Council 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 Local Government (PPDA)
Regulations, 2006 and whether due regard is given to economy, efficiency and value for money. The
audit was carried out in January 2014. This was the fourth audit to be done for the Entity. The other
audits were for 2008/09, 2010/11 and 2011/12. The audit covered a sample of twelve (12) procurement
activities and twenty eight (28) revenue collection tenders.
For the period under review, the Entity had an expected revenue income/expenditure budget estimate
of UGX. 2,856,580,000:
From the findings, below is a summary and graphical illustration of the Entity’s performance for
revenues alone, procurements alone and all sampled contracts:
Summary of performance of the Municipal Council as per procurements conducted
Risk Rating
No
% No
Value UGX
%Value
High
Medium
Low
Satisfactory
Total
6
2
3
1
12
50
17
25
8
100
33,000,000
19,950,750
42,000,000
6,000,000
100,950,750
33
20
41
6
100
Graphical representation of Risk Rating Criteria
Performance by Number of Contracts
Page 3 of 44
Performance by value of contracts
Summary of performance of the Municipal Council as per revenue centres
Risk Rating
No
% No
Value UGX
%Value
High
Medium
Low
Satisfactory
Total
7
6
12
3
28
25
21
43
11
100
135,150,000
23,820,000
288,232,000
12,600,000
459,802,000
Graphical representation of Risk Rating Criteria
Performance by number of revenue contracts
Page 4 of 44
29
5
63
3
100
Performance by value of revenue contracts
Summary of performance of the Municipal Council for both procurements and revenue centres
in comparison with previous audits
Risk
No % Value UGX %Value W Weights Weights Performance
Rating
No
(No)
(Value) of previous
audit of Fy
11/12 (%val)
High
13 32 168,150,000 30
0.6 19.2
18
5
Medium
8
20 43,770,750 8
0.3 6
2.4
22.5
Low
15 38 330,232,000 59
0.1 3.8
5.9
48.7
Satisfactory 4
10 18,600,000 3
0
0
0
23.8
Total
40
100 560,752,750 100
Weighted
average
1.0 29
48.3
26.3
43.8
100
Combined weighted average = 48.3 + 43.8 = 92.1 = 46.1
2
The combined weighted average performance of the Entity is 46.1 which is moderately satisfactory
Performance.
Key on the weighted Average Risk Rating Criteria
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total Weighted Average
0-9%
10-29%
30-49%
50-79%
80-100%
Risk Rating
Highly Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Moderately Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Highly Unsatisfactory
The performance of the Entity has declined with an increment in the high risk cases from 4 to 13. The
Underlying factors for this decline in performance includes:
i. Inviting less than the minimum number of bidders as a result of a limited shortlist of prequalified firms;
Page 5 of 44
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
Altering the evaluation criteria for the sake of awarding, in cases where a single bid was
received, which could result in award to incompetent firms;
Failure by the User Departments to submit copies of contracts to the PDU to facilitate contract
monitoring;
Failure by the Accounts department to avail payment records to PDU as evidence of payments
done;
Failure by the User Departments to appoint contract supervisor; and
Failure by the User Department to avail records of remittances of revenue collected to the PDU
and hence maintenance of the procurement action. It was therefore not possible to assess if the
contracts for revenue collection were being managed as per the agreed contract terms.
Performance by Number for all contracts reviewed
Performance by Contract Value for all contracts reviewed
High Risk Contracts by Method of Procurement
Sample High Risk Cases Sample
Procurement
Method
Value
Number No
%
Open National
Bidding
23
7
30.4
440,422,000
Page 6 of 44
High Risk Cases
Value
%
135,150,000
31
Selective Bidding
Total
17
40
6
13
35.3
32
120,330,750
560,752,750
33,000,000
168,150,000
27
30
Bar graph showing the Entity’s performance in comparison with the previous audit of FY
2011/2012
Page 7 of 44
Summary of Key Audit Findings and Recommendations
Area
Institutional set up
Exceptions noted
Contracts Committee
The term for the Contracts
Committee expired before a new
team had been nominated and
approved causing a delay in the
procurement process of three
months.
User Departments
In most cases reviewed, there was
no
appointment
of
contract
supervisors, contrary to Regulation
105(1) of the LG (PPDA),
Regulations, 2006.
Divisions were not submitting
records of remittances of revenue
collected by the contractors, making
it difficult to assess if the Entity was
receiving the revenue contracted.
Management of the In accordance with Reg 62 (2) of the
LG (PPDA) Regulations. 2006, the
procurement plan
Entity had a procurement plan for
the FY 2012/2013. However, the
audit observed that there were
procurements in the sample for audit
that
were
missing
in
the
procurement plan. These were:
i.
Revenue collection from taxi
park fees in East Division;
ii. Revenue collection from
washing bay fees;
Implication
Failure to have a new Contracts
Committee will delay service
delivery in the Entity since
Entity will only rely on the other
Entity’s Contracts Committee to
perform the functions roles of
Contracts
Committee
as
enshrined in the PPDA Act.
Failure to appoint contract
supervisors and prepare contract
implementation plans makes
monitoring of procurements
difficult and in most cases leads
to shoddy work or poor quality
of supplies and may lead to
unnecessary delays.
Recommendation
Accounting Officer should ensure that request
for approval of Contracts Committee
members is sought much earlier before expiry
of their term. This is to ensure that a
Contracts Committee is always in place, in
accordance with Regulation 14 (a) of the LG
(PPDA) Regulations. 2006.
User departments should appoint contract
supervisors for each contract in accordance
with Regulation 105 (1) of the PPDA (LG)
Regulations, 2006.
Assessment of service delivery is Town Councils should submit copies
not possible.
evidencing remittance of revenue by
contractors as part of contract management
records.
Unplanned procurements result The Accounting Officer should ensure that
in
unplanned
expenditures User Departments submit all their needs for
leading to creation of domestic consolidation by the PDU.
arrears.
The HPDU should ensure that the
In the case of revenues, procurement plan is adjusted in the course of
unplanned revenues will result in the year o cater for any additional items
poor allocation of the resources included. The adjusted plan should be
received.
approved by the Accounting Officer.
Page 1 of 44
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
Revenue collection from
special hire taxis;
special hire;
street parking around bazaar;
Street sweeping and sanitary
lane maintenance;
Maintenance of river banks;
Cleaning of toilets in Booma;
and
Renovation of east division
offices.
Bidding
Invitation
of The Entity had few suppliers listed
limited number of for some items. It was therefore
observed that under selective
bidders
bidding, less than three bidders were
invited in some of the cases
reviewed,
thereby
limiting
competition.
Evidence
invitation
Bidders
Bidder
Participation
This limits competition
hence value for money.
and The Entity should use LG (PPDA) Regulation
38 (4) in developing a shortlist for use under
selective bidding.
Rotation of providers is also
made
impossible,
thereby
awarding to the same providers
who may not provide value for
money.
of In addition to the above, the audit This limits transparency.
of observed that there was no record
evidencing invitation of bidders. It
was therefore not possible to
ascertain if the required minimum of
three had been invited. This was
contrary to Reg. 43 (3) of the PPDA
(LG) Regs. 2006 which states that
“all procurement and disposal shall
be conducted in a manner that
promotes
transparency,
accountability and fairness”
The audit revealed that bidder There is risk of the Entity being
participation in the Fort Portal MC is stuck with the same contractors
Page 2 of 44
Where the pre-qualification list does not have
sufficient bidders, bidders should be sought
from PPDA’s register of providers, another
PDE.
The HPDU should ensure that the record of
invitation of bidders is on file. Evidence of
invitation of bidders should also be
maintained on file.
The Contracts Committee and Head
Procurement and Disposal Unit should ensure
generally low with many tenders who may not be offering quality
under open and selective bidding work or value for money due to
attracting one to two bidders. The limited competition.
team did not observe any deliberate
attempt by the Entity to try and
address this issue of low bidder
participation.
This was also
observed in the previous audit and
there has been no improvement.
Evaluation Process
Signing
of
the In all the cases reviewed, the
Ethical Code of Evaluation Committee members did
not sign the Ethical Code of Conduct
Conduct
for Public Officers, contrary to
Reg.27 (9) of the PPDA (LG) Regs.
2006.
Failure to follow The audit observed that in some
the
evaluation cases, especially where there was a
criteria stated in single bid received, some of the
the
solicitation evaluation criteria was waived at the
time of evaluation in order to award
document
to the bidder, contrary to Sec. 71 (3)
of the PPDA Act, 2003.
Contracting and contract management
Altering
the The audit observed that the Entity
recommendation of was contracting short periods of
the
Evaluation three to six months resulting in the
Entity having to commence on
Committee
another procurement and contracting
process to contract another bidder.
Contracting
and In the following cases however there
were no copies of contracts on file,
contact
contrary to Reg. 46 (2) (j) of the
management
that a minimum of three bidders are invited to
bid under selective bidding and micro
procurement in accordance with LG (PPDA)
Regulation 38 (3). Where the Entity’s list
does not attract adequate providers for a given
item, the Entity should seek providers from
another Entity’s list.
The AO should investigate the cause of low
bidder participation in the Entity’s
procurement processes.
Evaluation committee members
may not be bound to adhere to
the
principles
of
public
procurement.
The HPDU should ensure that members of the
evaluation Committee sign the ethical code of
conduct and that a record of this is maintained
on the respective procurement action file, in
accordance with Reg.27 (9) of the PPDA
(LG) Regs. 2006.
Could result in incompetent The User Department should set evaluation
bidders.
criteria that are appropriate, taking into
consideration the nature of the items to be
Waiving of criteria during procured and the service required by the
evaluation may be interpreted as Entity.
biased and favoring some
bidders.
Evaluation criteria that is to be waived should
be agreed on by the Evaluation Committee at
the onset of the evaluation process.
Delayed service delivery.
The Entity should plan and contract for a
period for revenue collection by a contractor
that is appropriate to ensure there is no
disruption in revenue generation.
Failure to use the standard The User Departments should avail copies of
contract forms and have clear contracts to the PDU for maintenance on the
contract terms and duration respective procurement action file as required
Page 3 of 44
Contract
implementation
and management
PPDA (LG) Regs. 2006:
i.
Mpanga
market
toilet
awarded to Ms. Jennifer
Bonabana;
ii. Revenue collection from
washing bay fees from
Mugunu bay awarded to Mr.
Lawrence Kusemererwa;
iii. Cleaning of toilets in Booma
awarded to M/s Bigolo
Enterprises Ltd;
iv.
street
parking
bazaar
awarded to M/s Kamu
Enterprises Ltd.
 In 90% of the cases, contract
supervisors were not appointed.
 No contract implementation plans
were prepared in all cases for
purposes of monitoring contractor
performance.
indicated in the contract, the by Reg. 46 (2) (j) of the PPDA (LG) Regs.
Entity may be prone to ligation 2006
problems and contracts may not
protect the Entity.
Weak contract implementation 
and management raises the risk
of fraud and corruption which
leads
to
poor
contract
performance and increase in the 
cost of works contracts in the
municipality.
Page 4 of 44
Accounting officer should ensure user
departments appoint contract supervisors
for all contracts as per the PPDA
Regulations.
The contract supervisors should prepare
contract management plans and these
should be updated regularly with progress
on implementation and reports submitted
to relevant officers for monitoring
contract implementation.
Chapter One
1.1
Background information
The audit of procurement and disposal activities of Fort Portal Municipal Council 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 procurement and disposal
activities are conducted in accordance with the PPDA Act, 2003 and the Local Government
(PPDA) Regulations, 2006 and whether due regard is given to economy, efficiency and value
for money. The audit was carried out in February 2014.
1.2
Auditee
Fort Portal Municipal Council is in Kabarole District and responsible for the management of
the main town of Kabarole District. It is made up of four divisions namely: Central Division,
South Division, East Division and West Division.
Fort Portal Municipal Council has been audited by PPDA three times, the first audited being in
FY 2008/09, the second was in FY 2010/11, the third for FY 2011/12 and the current audit was
done for procurements carried out in the FY 2012/13 which is the fourth audit.
1.2.1
Structure of the entity
Fort Portal Municipal Council is comprised of the following 10 departments namely:1. Management;
2. Finance;
3. Council;
4. Production & Marketing;
5. Public Health;
6. Education/Sports;
7. Works Technical Services;
8. Natural Resources;
9. Community Based Services; and
10. Divisions – Central Division, South Division, East Division and West Division.
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 the LG (PPDA) Regulation 43 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 manner to achieve
competition and value for money; and
iv. To ensure there is confidentiality in the conduct of procurements and disposals.
Page 1 of 44
1.4
Specific audit objectives
Specifically, the objectives of the audit of Fort Portal Municipal Council were to:i. Review the institutional framework in the Entity;
ii. Assess the level of procurement reporting, records management and planning in the
Entity;
iii. Assess the level of compliance in the conduct of procurement and disposal activities; and
iv. Assess efficiency, economy and effectiveness of the procurement function in the Entity.
1.5
Scope of Audit
The audit covered an assessment of the Entity’s procurement management practices and
internal controls in place to ensure compliance with established procurement procedures as laid
out in the PPDA Act, and Regulations.
Specifically, the scope included an examination of the Entity’s compliance to provisions of the
PPDA Act and the Local Government (PPDA) Regulations ranging from procurement planning
and initiation to bidding, evaluation, awarding of contracts, contract monitoring, administration
and performance. This was done through examination of 40 sampled procurement action files
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
Limitation of Scope
Documentation especially contract management records for some of the revenue centres were
not availed for the review.
1.7
Audit Methodology
The audit was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the PPDA Act, 2003 and the
Local Government (PPDA) Regulations, 2006 and the Procurement Audit Manual of the
PPDA.
1.7.1
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 Fort
Portal Municipal Local Government;
i. Financial statements and budget for FY 2012/2013;
ii. Procurement plan and work plans for FY 2012/2013;
iii. Specific clauses in the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda relating to signing of
contracts in government;
iv. Contracts Committee Minutes; and
v. Procurement action files of 40 selected procurements.
b. Field Inspections
The team inspected 4 works projects to ascertain progress and quality of work.
Page 2 of 44
1.8
Meetings and audit report issuance
The Authority held an audit commencement meeting (entry meeting) on Monday 24th February,
2014 to officially launch the audit exercise. The exercise conclusion involved the conduct of an
audit closer (exit meeting) on Monday 3rd March 2013.
The procurements performance was rated in four categories according to the weaknesses
identified, namely; high risk, medium risk, low risk and satisfactory. The definitions of the risk
rating are in Appendix C.
Page 3 of 44
CHAPTER TWO:
2.1
INSTITUTIONAL FRAME WORK
Key Players
As per the PPDA Act, the key players in the Entity’s procurement and disposal activities were
the following: - Accounting Officer. who in the case of Fort Portal MC is the Town Clerk and
who takes overall responsibility of the entire procurement process in the Entity; the Contracts
Committee which approves bid documents, evaluation committees and reports, awards contract
and ensures general compliance with the law; the user departments which are responsible for
developing work plans, initiating procurements and managing contracts; and the Procurement
and Disposal Unit which is the secretariat and responsible for day to day management of
procurement activities.
2.1.1
Accounting Officer:
For the FY under review (2012/13), the substantive Accounting Officer for Fort Portal
Municipal Council was Mr. Edward Lwanga.
2.1.2
Contracts Committee
For the FY 2012/13 under review the CC was fully established with five members:
2.1.3
User Department
The user departments were not nominating contract supervisors nor preparing contract
implementation plans.
Implication
Failure to appoint contract supervisors and prepare contract implementation plans makes
monitoring of procurements difficult and in most cases leads to shoddy work or poor quality of
supplies and may lead to unnecessary delays.
2.1.4
Procurement and Disposal Unit
The PDU is headed by a Senior Procurement Officer – Ms. Kanda Christine.
Table showing position and qualification of PDU staff
Name
Staff Qualifications
Title
Ms Kanda Christine
SPO
BBA - Purchasing and Supplies
Mgt. Post Graduate Diploma in
Purchasing and Supplies Mgt
Ms
Kobusinge PO
BSP
Mwajuma
Mr. Byaruhanga Robert APO Dip. Purchasing & Supplies Mgt
It was noted that:
Page 4 of 44
Date of joining
the PDU
23rd Jan 2009
23rd Jan 2009
23rd Jan 2009
 The PDU is still poorly facilitated, it lacks internet, transport, filing cabinets. The PDU is
currently housed in one office, though more is to be provided as the District vacates the
current buildings, but this will be in long run.
 The PDU though fully staffed, there is need for a Records Assistant and Secretary.
Implication
 Failure to staff PDU adequately and allow sufficient facilitation undermines the level of
performance of the unit.
Recommendation
 Accounting Officer should urgently liaise with the relevant authorities to be able to
adequately staff the PDU and give it adequate facilitation.
2.2
Reporting:
It is a requirement under the PPDA Act for the Accounting Officer to make quarterly reports of
all procurements and disposals to the Authority. The Entity submitted to the Authority all the
required quarterly reports. There were no micro procurement reports attached to reports
submitted to the Authority. There were no postings on tender portal due to lack of internet
availability or access by PDU.
Page 5 of 44
CHAPTER THREE: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON MANAGEMENT OF PROCUREMENT
BY STAGE
3.1
3.1.1
Performance of the Contracts Committee
The term for the Contracts Committee expired before a new team had been nominated and
approved causing a delay in the procurement process of three months.
Implication
Failure to have a new Contract Committee will delay service delivery in the Entity since Entity
will only rely on the other Entity’s CC to perform the functions roles of CC as enshrined in the
PPDA Act.
Recommendation
Accounting Officer should ensure that request for approval of Contracts Committee members is
sought much earlier before expiry of their term. This is to ensure that a Contracts Committee is
always in place, in accordance with Reg. 14 (a) of the PPDA Regs. 2006.
3.1.2
User Departments
In most cases reviewed, there was no appointment of contract supervisors, contrary to Reg. 105
(1) of the PPDA (LG) Regs. 2006.
Divisions were not submitting records of remittances of revenue collected by the contractors,
making it difficult to assess if the Entity was receiving the revenue contracted.
Implication
Failure to appoint contract supervisors and prepare contract implementation plans makes
monitoring of procurements difficult and in most cases leads to shoddy work or poor quality of
supplies and may lead to unnecessary delays.
Assessment of service delivery is not possible.
Recommendations
a. User departments should appoint contract supervisors for each contract in accordance with
Reg. 105 (1) of the PPDA (LG) Regs. 2006.
b. Town Councils should submit copies evidencing remittance of revenue by contractors as
part of contract management records.
3.1.3
Management of the procurement plan
In accordance with Reg 62 (2) of the PPDA Regs. 2006, the Entity had a procurement plan for
the FY 2012/2013.
However, the audit observed that there were procurements in the sample for audit that were in
the procurement plan. These were:
i.
Revenue collection from taxi park fees in East Division;
ii.
Revenue collection from washing bay fees;
iii. Revenue collection from special hire taxis;
Page 6 of 44
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
Revenue collection from special hire;
Revenue collection from street parking around bazaar;
Street sweeping and sanitary lane maintenance;
Maintenance of river banks;
Cleaning of toilets in Booma; and
Renovation of east division offices.
Implication
Unplanned procurements result in unplanned expenditures leading to creation of domestic
arrears.
In the case of revenues, unplanned revenues will result in poor allocation of the resources
received.
Recommendations
a. The Accounting Officer should ensure that User Departments submit all their needs for
consolidation by the PDU.
b. The HPDU should ensure that the procurement plan is adjusted in the course of the year o
cater for any additional items included. The adjusted plan should be approved by the
Accounting Officer.
3.2
3.2.1
Bidding
Invitation of limited number of bidders
The Entity had few suppliers listed for some items. It was therefore observed that under
selective bidding, less than three bidders were invited in some of the cases reviewed, thereby
limiting competition.
Implication
This limits competition and hence value for money.
Rotation of providers is also made impossible, thereby awarding to the same providers who
may not provide value for money.
Recommendations
a. The Entity should use LG (PPDA) Regulation 38 (4) in developing a shortlist for use under
selective bidding.
b. Where the pre-qualification list does not have sufficient bidders, bidders should be sought
from PPDA’s register of providers, another PDE.
3.2.2
Evidence of invitation of Bidders
In addition to the above, the audit observed that there was no record evidencing invitation of
bidders. It was therefore not possible to ascertain if the required minimum of three had been
invited. This was contrary to Reg. 43 (3) of the PPDA (LG) Regs. 2006 which states that “all
procurement and disposal shall be conducted in a manner that promotes transparency,
accountability and fairness”.
Page 7 of 44
Implication
This limits transparency.
Recommendation
The HPDU should ensure that the record of invitation of bidders is on file. Evidence of
invitation of bidders should also be maintained on file.
3.2.3
Bidder Participation
The audit revealed that bidder participation in the Fort Portal MC is generally low with many
tenders under open and selective bidding attracting one to two bidders. The team did not
observe any deliberate attempt by the Entity to try and address this issue of low bidder
participation. This was also observed in the previous audit and there has been no improvement.
Implication
There is risk of the Entity being stuck with the same contractors who may not be offering
quality work or value for money due to limited competition.
Recommendations
a. The Contracts Committee and Head Procurement and Disposal Unit should ensure that a
minimum of three bidders are invited to bid under selective bidding and micro procurement
in accordance with LG (PPDA) Regulation 38 (3). Where the Entity’s list does not attract
adequate providers for a given item, the Entity should seek providers from another Entity’s
list.
b. The AO should investigate the cause of low bidder participation in the Entity’s procurement
processes.
3.3
3.3.1
Evaluation Process
Signing of the Ethical Code of Conduct
In all the cases reviewed, the Evaluation Committee members did not sign the Ethical Code of
Conduct for Public Officers, contrary to Reg.27 (9) of the PPDA (LG) Regs. 2006.
Implication
Evaluation committee members may not be bound to adhere to the principles of public
procurement.
Recommendation
The HPDU should ensure that members of the evaluation Committee sign the ethical code of
conduct and that a record of this is maintained on the respective procurement action file, in
accordance with Reg.27 (9) of the PPDA (LG) Regs. 2006.
3.3.2
Failure to follow the evaluation criteria stated in the solicitation document
The audit observed that in some cases, especially where there was a single bid received, some
of the evaluation criteria was waived at the time of evaluation in order to award to the bidder,
contrary to Sec. 71 (3) of the PPDA Act, 2003.
Implication
Could result in incompetent bidders.
Page 8 of 44
Waiving of criteria during evaluation may be interpreted as biased and favoring some bidders.
Recommendations
a. The User Department should set evaluation criteria that are appropriate, taking into
consideration the nature of the items to be procured and the service required by the Entity.
b. Evaluation criteria that is to be waived should be agreed on by the Evaluation Committee at
the onset of the evaluation process.
3.4
Contracting and contract management
3.4.1
Altering the recommendation of the Evaluation Committee
The audit observed that the Entity was contracting short periods of three to six months resulting
in the Entity having to commence on another procurement and contracting process to contract
another bidder.
Implication
Delayed service delivery.
Recommendation
The Entity should plan and contract for a period for revenue collection by a contractor that is
appropriate to ensure there is no disruption in revenue generation.
3.4.2
Contracting and contact management
In the following cases however there were no copies of contracts on file, contrary to Reg. 46
(2) (j) of the PPDA (LG) Regs. 2006:
i.
Revenue collection from Mpanga market toilet awarded to Ms. Jennifer Bonabana;
ii.
Revenue collection from washing bay fees from Mugunu bay awarded to Mr. Lawrence
Kusemererwa;
iii. Cleaning of toilets in Booma awarded to M/s Bigolo Enterprises Ltd;
iv.
Revenue collection from street parking bazaar awarded to M/s Kamu Enterprises Ltd.
Implication
Failure to use the standard contract forms and have clear contract terms and duration indicated
in the contract, the Entity may be prone to ligation problems and contracts may not protect the
Entity.
Recommendation
The User Departments should avail copies of contracts to the PDU for maintenance on the
respective procurement action file as required by Reg. 46 (2) (j) of the PPDA (LG) Regs. 2006.
3.4.3
Contract implementation and management
In 90% of the cases, contract supervisors were not appointed. No contract implementation plans
were prepared in all cases for purposes of monitoring contractor performance.
Page 9 of 44
Implication
Weak contract implementation and management raises the risk of fraud and corruption which
leads to poor contract performance and increase in the cost of works contracts in the
municipality.
Recommendations
a) Accounting officer should ensure user departments appoint contract supervisors for all
contracts as per the PPDA Regulations.
b) The contract supervisors should prepare contract management plans and these should be
updated regularly with progress on implementation and reports submitted to relevant
officers for monitoring contract implementation.
Page 10 of 44
CHAPTER FOUR: CASE BY CASE
4.1 High Risk Cases
Subject of Procurement: Revenue
Collection from Mpanga Market toilet –
South Division
Ref. No.: Fort 753/Srvcs/12-13/00018
Method of Procurement: Open
Domestic Bidding
Contract Amount: UGX 3,600,000
Estimated Amount: UGX8,400,000 (12
months)
Provider: Ms. Bonabana Jennifer
Contract Date: 1st July 2014
HR2
Collection of washing bay fees from
Mugunu bay – West Division
Ref. No.:Fort 753/Srvcs/12-13/00058
Method of Procurement: Open Bidding
Contract Amount: UGX. 6,000,000 (6
months)
Estimated Amount:UGX4,200,000 (6
months)
Provider: Mr. Kusemererwa Lawrence
Contract Date: NI
Subject of Procurement: Maintenance
HR3
of Earth and murum road in Kijanju
South Division
Ref. No.: Fort 753/srvcs/12-13/00030
Method of Procurement: Selective
Bidding
Estimated Amount: UGX 4,800,000(
VAT inclusive)
Provider: Mr. Mwangushya John
Contract Date: 13th Jan 2013
H1






There was no appointment of a contract
supervisor, contrary to Reg. 105 of the
PPDA (LG) Regs. 2006.
No evidence of remittances to FMC by
tenderer on a monthly basis.
The copy of the contract was not on file,
contrary to Reg. 46 (2) (j) of the PPDA
(LG) Regs. 2006.
There was no copy of contract
implementation plan on file.
There was no evidence on file of
remittances made.
There were no contract management records
on file.
Captions above shows the road layered
Page 11 of 44
HR4
HR5
HR6
HR7
with earth and murrum
of Mpanga river banks
Ref. No.: Fort 753/srvcs/12-13/00035
bidding
Contract Amount: UGX. 6,000,000
Estimated Amount: UGX. 6,600,000
Provider: Ms. Tibananuka Susan
Contract Date: 2nd January 2013
Subject of Procurement: Collection of
local Hotel tax from west division hotels
and lodges
Ref. No.: Fort753/srvcs/12-12/00028
Method of Procurement: Open bidding
Contract Amount: UGX.3,000,000 for
6months
for 12 months
Provider: Mr. Sabiiti Joseph
collection from roasted meat and
chapattis in East division
Contract Amount: 150,000 (3months)
Estimated Amount: 75,000/= per month
Provider: Agaba Edson
Contract Date: 1st April 2013
Subject of Procurement: Beautification
of green islands, roundabouts and
stretches in town
Ref. No.: FORT 753/svcs/12-13/00044
Bidding
Months)
(12 Months)
Provider: Mr. Tuesday Emmanuel
Contract Date: 5/01/13
There was no documentation on file indicating
that remittances were made.

There was no record of revenue collected
by the contractor.
No receipts showing revenue remittance on
file.


There were no records of remittances by
the contractor.
Page 12 of 44
Picture above show swept roads and
pavements
HR8
Pictures above showing well maintained
compound, pavements.
Subject of Procurement: Cleaning of
toilets in Booma
Ref. No.: Fort 753/svcs/12-13/00045
Bidding
Provider: M/s Bigolo Enterprises Ltd
Contract Date: NI
Picture above show a well maintained
compound in Fort Portal main street





HR9
of earth and murrum roads Kasusu ward,
South Division
Ref. No.: Fort 753/svcs/12-13/00031




There was no competition exercised as
only two bidders were invited to submit
bids.
There was no NOBEB on file.
There was no contract on file, contrary to
Reg. 46 (2) (j) of the PPDA (LG) Regs.
2006.
There were no records of the service
rendered.
There was no record of payment on file.
No record of EC signing the Code of
ethical conduct for public officers.
supervisor.
There were no certificates of completion.
Page 13 of 44
HR10
HR11
HR12
Bidding
Provider: Ms. Grace Mable Kayonjo
Contract Date: 3rd Jan 2013
of open space in Kiteere compositing
plant
Ref. No.: Fort 753/svcs/12-13/00034
Bidding
Provider: Mr. Andrew Kanamugire
Contract Date: 9th Jan 2013

There was no record of payment on file.

The EC however noted that the bidder had
not submitted one item of bank statement,
but the EC opted to proceed to award.
supervisor.
There were no records of remittances of
revenue collected on file.


Captions above showing maintenance at Kiteere compositing plant and also trees planted
as part of maintenance
 There was no appointment of a contract
Collection from loading and offloading
fees from carrying merchandise in East
Division
 There were no remittances by the
Ref. No.: Fort 753/svcs/12-13//00057
contractor.
Domestic Bidding
Contract Amount: UGX. 900,000
Estimated Amount: UGX. 1,800,000 (6
months)
Provider: M/s Kagoma Friends
Enterprises Ltd
Collection from Local Hotel Tax (LHT)
supervisor, contrary to Reg. 105 of the PPDA
in South Division
(LG) Regs. 2006.
Ref. No.:Fort 753/svcs/12-13/00059
There were no records of remittances made by
Domestic Bidding
the contractor.
Page 14 of 44
HR13
(3mths)
(6mths)
Provider: M/s Cash & Talk Fort Portal
Transporters Ltd
collection from taxi operators within
Nyakaseke Taxi Park
Ref. No.:Fort 753/svcs/12-13/00048
Domestic Bidding
pm
Provider: M/s Bakaramagi& Co. Ltd
the contractor.
Medium Risk cases
MR1
Collection of washing bay fees from
Mugunu bay – West Division
Ref. No.: Fort 753/Srvcs/12-13/00021
Contract Amount: UGX 4,200,000 (6
MONTHS)
Estimated Amount: UGX12,000,000
(12 MONTHS)
Subject of Procurement: Maintenance of
MR2
cemetery and mortuary in Bukwahi in
East Division
Ref. No.: Fort 753/svcs/12-13/00039
Bidding
Provider: Mr. David Ndikumwami
MR3
collection from Kacwamba market in
South Division
Ref. No.:Fort753/svcs/12-13/00002
Domestic Bidding
Estimated Amount:









Copy of contract implementation plan was
not on file.
Payments were not complete. UGX.
2,720,000 was raised out of UGX.
4,200,000.
There was no competition exercised, as
only one bidder was invited. There was no
evidence of how many bidders were
invited or if only one bidder was invited.
There were no records of certifications of
completion to evidence work done.
There was no record of payment made to
the contractor.
The audit observed that Mr. Badru
Muhenda was non-compliant with
presenting any new relevant innovation to
handling of the tasks and customer service.
M/s Data Justo Tagswell did not submit
experience in similar works and this was
waived.
Page 15 of 44
Provider: M/s Data JutoTagswell
MR4
supervisor.
the contractor.
Payment records were not complete.

Subject of Procurement: Renovation of
East Division Social Hall
Ref. No.:Fort 753/wrks/12-13/00001
Bidding
Provider:M/s Nyamubaje Contractors Ltd
Contract Date: 26th June 2013
Renovations works almost complete.
Painting had commenced
MR5
MR6
There were some cracks on the floor. These need to be rectified before the end of the
defects liability period
 There was no appointment of a contract
Collection from special hire
Ref. No.:Fort 753/svcs/12-13/00050
 There were no records of remittances by
Domestic Bidding
the contractor.
Estimated Amount:UGX. 1,500,000
Provider:M/s Kamu Enterprises Ltd
collection from Kacwamba market
Page 16 of 44
MR7
MR8
Ref. No.:Fort 753/svcs/12-13/00068
Domestic Bidding
Provider: Ms. BadruMuhenda
collection from charcoal dues from
Kabundaire market
Ref. No.:Fort 753/svcs/12-13/00025
Domestic Bidding
Provider: Mr. Vincent Muyamba
Collection from street parking Bazaar
Ref. No.: Fort 753/svcs/12-13/00051
Domestic Bidding
Provider: M/s Kamu Enterprises Ltd
Contract Date: NI
There were no records of remittance of
revenue by the contractor to the Entity.


There were no records of remittances of
revenue collected by the contractor.
There was no contract on file, contrary to
Reg. 46 (2) (j) of the PPDA (LG) Regs.
2006.
Low Risk cases
Subject of Procurement: Garbage
LR1
Collection and Disposal in South
Division
Ref. No.: Fort 753/Srvcs/12-13/00042
Bidding
(12 months)
Contract Date: 5th January 2013
LR2
Collection from Kahinju bus park toilet –
South Division
Ref. No.: Fort 753/Srvcs/12-13/00031
Bidding




Submission of approval of method to the
Contracts Committee was not on file.
The sole bidder did not submit a certificate
of registration, income tax clearance
certificate for FY 10-11, no declaration of
nationality of bidder, no bank statement for
Feb 2012, no memorandum & articles of
association, no power of attorney.
There was no copy of the contract
implementation plan on file.
The BEB did not submit a certificate of
registration, no income tax clearance
certificate FY 10-11, declaration of
nationality of bidder, bank statement for
Feb 2012, no memorandum & articles of
association and no power of attorney. These
were to be submitted before contract
signing, however, there was no record of
Page 17 of 44
(12 MONTHS)
Provider: Ms Bonabana Jennifer


LR3
LR4
LR5
LR6
Collection of Local Hotel tax in East
Division
Ref. No.: Fort 753/Srvcs/12-13/00014
Contract Amount: UGX 4,200,000 (6
MONTHS)
(12 MONTHS)
Provider: Ms Bujwera Ruth
Collection of Street Parking Fees in
South Division
Ref. No.: Fort 753/Srvcs/12-13/00005
months)
(12 MONTHS)
Provider: M/s Kamu Enterprises (U) Ltd
Collection from Local Hotel Tax South
Division
Ref. No.: Fort 753/Srvcs/12-13/00007
Contract Amount: UGX. 21,390,000(6
MONTHS)
(12 MONTHS)
Provider: Mr. Rugumayo Robert
Subject of Procurement: Street
sweeping and sanitary lane maintenance
Bidding






this.
No copy of contract implementation plan on
file
Contract implementation plan was not on
file.
The letter of acceptance of offer by the
bidder, M/s Kamu Enterprises (u) Ltd was
not on file.
There was no contract implementation plan
on file.
(LG) Regs. 2006.
Page 18 of 44
LR7
LR8
LR9
LR10
LR11
Contract Date: 6th February 2013
collection of Mpanga market dues
Estimated
Amount:
600,000/=per
month
Provider: Mr. Sabiiti Joseph
and loading of solid waste on collection
sites(East Division)
Ref. No.:Fort753/srvcs/12-13/00088
Bidding
Provider: Ms. Kyomuhendo Clovis
Contract Date: 1st February 2013
collection Nyakaseke toilet
Ref. No.: Fort 753/srvs/12-13/00076
Provider:Tuesday Emmanuel
Collection from slaughter house fees in
South Division
Ref. No.:FORT753/svcs/12-13/00004
Domestic Bidding
Provider: Mr. Robert Aliganyira
collection from taxi park fees in East
Division
Ref. No.: FORT 753/svcs/12-13/00011
Domestic Bidding
Contract Amount: UGX.110,000,000
Provider: M/s Fort Portal Transporters
Co. Ltd
(LG) Regs. 2006.
The PP form 1 was not signed by the Finance
Officer to approve the procurement.
(LG) Regs. 2006.
There were no records of revenue remitted on
file.


Remittances for two months were not on
file.
The Evaluation Committee did not sign the
ethical code of conduct.
There was no record of remittances for two
remaining months made after Fort Portal
Transporters Co. Ltd’s contract was
terminated.
Page 19 of 44
LR12
LR13
LR14
L15
collection from slaughter slab in East
Division
Ref. No.:Fort 753/svcs/12-13/00013
Method of Procurement:Open
Domestic Bidding
Contract Date: 1st Aug 2012
collection from loading & off loading
fees in South Division
Ref. No.: Fort 753/svcs/12-13/00006
Domestic Bidding
Provider: M/s Kagoma Friends
Enterprises Ltd
Collection from Mpanga Taxi Park Fees
in East Division
Ref. No.:Fort 753/svcs/12-13/00049
Domestic Bidding
(17,000,000pm)
Provider: M/s Cash & Talk Fort Portal
Transporters Ltd
Collection from slaughter house fee from
Kabundaire
Ref. No.:Fort753/svcs/12-13/00024
Domestic Bidding
mths)
Satisfactory Cases
Subject of Procurement: Garbage
S1
(LG) Regs. 2006.
There was no record the notice of the best
evaluated bidder notice (NOBEB) on file,
contrary to Reg. 46 (2) (h).
(LG) Regs. 2006..
No exceptions noted.
Page 20 of 44
S2
S3
S4
Collection in West Division
Ref. No.:Fort 753/srvcs/12-13/00079
bidding
Estimated Amount: UGX 504,000 per
month for 12 months
Provider: Mr. Trader Suleiman
Contract Date: 1st January 2013
collection from Nyakaseke Market
Ref. No.: Fort 753/srvcs/12-13/00011
Method of Procurement: Open Domestic
bidding
Contract Amount: UGX 3,000,000(
500,000 every month for six months)
Estimated Amount: UGX 6,000,000(
500,000 every month)
Subject of Procurement: Revenue No exceptions noted.
collection from sticker fees from Mugunu
Lorrry Park
Ref. No.: Fort 753/srvcs/12-13/00026
Provider: M/S Fort Portal Lorry Drivers
Association
Contract Date: 27th July 2012
collection from special hire taxis
Ref. No.: FORT 753/svcs/12-13/00033
Bidding
Provider: M/s Kamu Enterprises (U) Ltd
Page 21 of 44
Chapter five: Audit Conclusion and Action Plan
5.1
Audit Conclusion
The performance of the Entity is rated moderately satisfactory with a combined weighted average of 46.1.
The performance of the Entity has declined with an increment in the high risk cases from 4 to 13. The
Underlying factors for this decline in performance includes:
i.
Inviting less than the minimum number of bidders as a result of a limited shortlist of pre-qualified firms;
ii.
Altering the evaluation criteria for the sake of awarding, in cases where a single bid was received, which could result in
award to incompetent firms;
iii. Failure by the User Departments to submit copies of contracts to the PDU to facilitate contract monitoring;
iv.
Failure by the Accounts department to avail payment records to PDU as evidence of payments done;
v.
Failure by the User Departments to appoint contract supervisor; and
vi.
Failure by the User Department to avail records of remittances of revenue collected to the PDU and hence maintenance of the
procurement action. It was therefore not possible to assess if the contracts for revenue collection were being managed as per
the agreed contract terms.
5.2
Action Plan
Area
Recommendation
Responsible Officer
Accounting Officer should ensure that request for approval of Accounting Officer
Contracts Committee members is sought much earlier before expiry
of their term. This is to ensure that a Contracts Committee is always
in place, in accordance with Reg. 14 (a) of the PPDA Regs. 2006.
User departments should appoint contract supervisors for each User Departments
contract in accordance with Reg. 105 (1) of the PPDA (LG) Regs.
2006.
Town Councils should submit copies evidencing remittance of
revenue by contractors as part of contract management records.
Management of the User Departments should submit all their needs for consolidation by User Departments
the PDU.
procurement plan
The HPDU should ensure that the procurement plan is adjusted in the Head, PDU
Page 22 of 44
Timeframe
September 2014
September 2014
September 2014
September 2014
course of the year o cater for any additional items included. The
adjusted plan should be approved by the Accounting Officer.
Invitation of limited The Entity should use LG (PPDA) Regulation 38 (4) in developing a Head, PDU
shortlist for use under selective bidding.
number of bidders
Where the pre-qualification list does not have sufficient bidders,
bidders should be sought from PPDA’s register of providers, another
PDE.
Evidence of invitation The record of invitation of bidders should be maintained on file. Head, PDU
Evidence of invitation of bidders should also be maintained on file.
of Bidders
A minimum of three bidders should be invited to bid under selective Head, PDU
Bidder Participation
bidding and micro procurement in accordance with LG (PPDA)
Regulation 38 (3). Where the Entity’s list does not attract adequate
providers for a given item, the Entity should seek providers from
another Entity’s list.
Signing of the Ethical
Code of Conduct
Failure to follow the
evaluation
criteria
stated
in
the
solicitation document
The AO should investigate the cause of low bidder participation in
the Entity’s procurement processes.
Accounting Officer
The HPDU should ensure that members of the evaluation Committee Head, PDU
sign the ethical code of conduct and that a record of this is
maintained on the respective procurement action file, in accordance
with Reg.27 (9) of the PPDA (LG) Regs. 2006.
The User Department should set evaluation criteria that are User Department
appropriate, taking into consideration the nature of the items to be
procured and the service required by the Entity.
Evaluation criteria that is to be waived should be agreed on by the
Evaluation Committee at the onset of the evaluation process.
Evaluation
Committee
Altering
the The Entity should plan and contract for a period for revenue Accounting Officer
recommendation
of collection by a contractor that is appropriate to ensure there is no
the
Evaluation disruption in revenue generation.
Committee
Contracting
and The User Departments should avail copies of contracts to the PDU User Department
for maintenance on the respective procurement action file as required
contact management
by Reg. 46 (2) (j) of the PPDA (LG) Regs. 2006
Page 23 of 44
September 2014
September 2014
September 2014
September 2014
September 2014
September 2014
September 2014
Contract
implementation
management

and

Accounting officer should ensure user departments appoint Accounting Officer, September 2014
contract supervisors for all contracts as per the PPDA User Departments
Regulations.
The contract supervisors should prepare contract management
plans and these should be updated regularly with progress on
implementation and reports submitted to relevant officers for
monitoring contract implementation.
Page 24 of 44
Appendix A: Capacity Building Activities
No. Date
Course
1
21/6/2012  Highlights on the PPDA Amendments Act 2011
 Common findings in Procurement Audit and
Investigations
 Experience in Managing a PDU
 Value addition in the procurement and Disposal
Process
 Career resilience
2
2/5/2012
 Contracts Committee Clinic
3
28/3/2011

3rd Forum for Procurement
Government PDEs
cadre
Page 25 of 44
in
Participant(s)
Kobusingye
Mwajuma
Target
PDU Staff
Alinaitwe
Contracts
Raymond
Committee
Komuntaro Alice
Mawenu Sam
Mugasa Clovis
Kirwani Micheal
PDU Staff
Local Robert
Byaruhanga
Appendix B: 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 within This implies emergencies and use of the direct procurement
the approved plan.
method which affects competition and value for money.
Bidding Process: Use of wrong/inappropriate This implies use of less competitive methods which affects
procurement methods, failure to seek Contracts transparency, accountability and value for money.
Committee approvals and usurping the powers
of the PDU.
Evaluation: Use of inappropriate evaluation This implies financial loss caused by awarding contracts at
methodologies or failure to conduct evaluation. higher prices or shoddy work caused by failure to
recommend award to a responsive bidder.
Record Keeping: Missing procurement files This implies that one cannot ascertain the audit trail namely;
and missing key records on the files namely; whether there was competition and fairness in the
solicitation documents, submitted bids, procurement process.
evaluation reports and contracts.
Fraud/forgery: Falsification of Documents
This implies lack of transparency and value for money.
Contract Management: Payment for shoddy This implies financial loss since there has been no value for
work or work not delivered.
money for the funds spent and the services have not been
received by the intended beneficiaries.
Moderate Risk
Relates to but not limited to substantial Policy & Procedure exceptions such as:Area
Implication
Planning: Lack of initiation of procurements and This implies committing the Entity without funds
confirmation of funds.
thereby causing domestic arrears.
Bidding Process: Deviations from standard This implies lack of efficiency, standardization and
procedures namely bidding periods, standard avoiding competition.
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 This implies lack of independence of functions and
structures.
powers and interference in the procurement process.
Record Keeping: Missing Contracts Committee This implies that one cannot ascertain the audit trail
records and incomplete contract management namely; whether the necessary approvals were
records.
obtained in a procurement process.
This leads to unjustified contract amendment and
Contract and Contract Management:
Failure to appoint contract managers, failure to seek variations which lead to unjustified delayed contract
the Solicitor General’s approval for contracts above completion and lack of value for money. Bidders are
Ugs. 50 million and lack of notices of Best not given the right of appeal.
Evaluated Bidders.
Low Risk
Relates to but not limited to minor or inconsequential procedural omission such as: Area
Implication
Planning: Lack of procurement reference numbers. This leads to failure to track the procurements which
Page 26 of 44
leads to poor record keeping.
Bidding Process: Not signing the Ethical Code of This leads to failure to declare conflict of interest and
Conduct
lack of transparency.
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 of
the audit exercise.
Page 27 of 44
Appendix C: Sampled Procurements
FORT PORTAL MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SAMPLE LIST FOR AUDIT OF FY 2012/2013
S/N
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12
13.
14.
15.
Reference no.
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00011
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00001
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00024
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00005
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00003
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00028
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00006
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00021
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00014
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00013
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00007
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00004
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00018
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00033
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00025
Subject of procurement
Revenue collection from tax park
fees in East division
Nyakaseke toilet
Revenue collection from slaughter
house fee from K abundaire
Revenue collection from street
parking fees in south division
Nyakaseke taxi park
Revenue collection from local hotel
tax western division
Revenue collection from loading &
off loading fees in south division
Revenue collection from washing
bay fees
Revenue collection from local
Hotel tax in East division
house fees in East division
Revenue collection from local hotel
tax in south division
house fees in south division
Revenue collection from toilet fees
at Mpanga market
Revenue collection from special
hire taxis
Charcoal dues from Kabundaire
market
Provider
Contract period
Ms Fortportal
1.7.12 -31.12/12
transporters Co.Ltd
Ms Bonabana Jeniffer 1.7.12 – 31.12.12
Contract value (UGX)
111,000,000
Ms Aliganyira Robert 1.7.12 -31.12.12
18,600,000
Ms Kamu Enterprises
1.7.12 -31.12.12
12,012,000
Ms Bakaramagi&Co.
Ltd
Ms sabiti Joseph
1.7.12 -31.12.12
111,000,000
1.7.12 -31.12.12
3,000,000
Ms Kagoma friends
Enterprise Ltd
Ms Bonabana
Jennifer
Ms bujwera Ruth
1.7.12 -31.12.12
13,800,000
1.7.12 -31.12.12
4,200,000
1.7.12 -31.12.12
4,200,000
8,000,000
Ms Rugumayo
1.7.12 -31.12.12
Robert
21,390,000
Ms Bonabana Jenifer
1.7.12 -31.12.12
3,600,000
Ms Kamu Enterprise
U Ltd
Vincent Mugamba
1.7.12 -31.12.12
3,000,000
1.7.12 -31.12.12
600,000
Page 28 of 44
6,000,000
7,200,000
S/N
Reference no.
Provider
Contract period
16.
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00069
Ms Agaba Edson
30th June 2013
17.
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00009
Revenue collection from roasted
meat and chapatti in East
division
Revenue collection from LHT in
south division
Contract
value(UGX)
150,000
30th June 2013
10,500,000
18.
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00076
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00049
Nyakaseke Toilet
Revenue collection from taxi
park fees east division
30th June 2013
1,500,000
30th June 2013
84,750,000
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00050
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00057
Revenue collection special hire
Ms cash & Talk
Fortportal
transporters Ltd
Ms Tuesday
Emmanuel
Ms Cash & Talk
Fortportal
transporters Ltd
MS Kamu
enterprises u LTD
Ms Kagoma
Friends enterprises
Ltd
Ms Kusemererwa
Lawrence
Ms Kamu
enterprises U Ltd
Ms Jennifer
Bonabana
Ms Ndikumwami
David
30th June 2013
1,500,000
30th June 2013
900,000
30th June 2013
2,200,000
30th June 2013
12,012,000
30th June 2013
18,000,000
31st December 2013
2,400,000
Ms Tuesday
Emmanuel
Ms Tuesday
Emmanuel
MS Kyomuhendo
Clovis
31st December 2013
18,000,000
31st December 2013
18,000,000
31st December 2013
6,000,000
MS Tibananuka
31st December 2013
6,000,000
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00058
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00051
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00075
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00039
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00042
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00043
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00043
FORT753/srvcs/12-
Revenue collection for loading
and off loading fees carrying
merchandise in East division
Revenue collection Mugunu
washing bay
Revenue collection street
parking around Bazaar
Revenue collection Kahinju
toilet
Maintenance of cemetery and
mortuary in Bukwali East
division
Garbage collection and disposal
in south division
Street sweeping and sanitary
lane maintenance
Maintenance of loading of solid
waste on collection sites East
division
Maintenance of Mpanga River
Page 29 of 44
13/00035
Reference no.
banks
Susan
Provider
30.
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00031
Ms Grace Mable
kayonjo
31st December 2013
31.
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00030
Ms Mwaghuhya
John
31st December 2013
4,800,000
32.
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00045
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00034
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00079
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00044
Maintenance of earth and
murrum roads in Kasusu ward
south division
Maintenance of earth and
murrum roads in KIJANJU ward
south division
Cleaning of toilets in Booma
Contract
value(UGX)
4,800,000
Ms Bigolo
enterprises Co.Ltd
Ms Kanamugire
Andrew
Ms Trader
Suleiman
Ms Tuesday
Emmanuel
31st December 2013
6,000,000
31st December 2013
3,000,000
31st December 2013
6,000,000
31st December 2013
8,400,000
Ms Nyamubaje
contractors
Ms Fortportal
Lorry Drivers
Association
Ms Sabiiti Joseph
30th September
2013
1.7.12 -31.12.12
17,550,750
1.7.12 -31.12.12
2,100,000
Ms Datajusto Tags
Weli
Ms Muhenda
Badru
1.7.12 -31.12.12
2,868,000
30th June 2013
1,440,000
S/N
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
FORT753/Wrks/1213/00001
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00026
Maintenance of open space in
Kiteere compositing plant
Garbage collection in western
division
Beautification of green islands,
roundabouts and stretches in
town
Renovation of east division
offices
Revenue collection from sticker
fees from Mugunu Lorry park
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00016
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00002
FORT753/srvcs/1213/00068
Mpanga market dues
Kacwamba market
kacwamba market
Page 30 of 44
Contract period
6,660,000

Audit Rpt - Fort Portal Municipal Council For FY 2012-2013

Transcription

Similar documents

procurement news - Caltech Procurement Services

How to Do Business with the Ontario Government

chilecompra.cl

Global Procurement and Supply - Gaffney

connect communicate collaborate

SoEPS Newsletter Issue 4 Spring 2015 May

IN REVENUES - SNC

SHC Corporate Profile

2999 $1499 $5999 $5999 $15999 $1899 $2495 $1099 10% off 10

A Better Deal For Public Building