Lan VFM VFM 2020 21 1692899168

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
VALUE FOR MONEY FINAL AUDIT REPORT ON A SAMPLE OF SELECTED URBAN

INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS IMPLEMENTED BY ENTEBBE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2020/2021
Kampala Road (USMID) Busambaga Road (URF)
FINAL AUDIT REPORT
MAY 2023
Value for Money Audit/Assessment of the Municipalities Participating in the Uganda Support to Municipal
Infrastructure Development Additional Funding (USMID AF) Program
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................i

ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................. iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 1
CHAPTER ONE ....................................................................................................... 12
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................12
Background ........................................................................................................12
Audit Objectives ................................................................................................. 12
Audit Scope ........................................................................................................13
Selection of Projects ........................................................................................... 13
CHAPTER TWO .......................................................................................................15
AUDIT METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 15

Assessment of Economy ...................................................................................15
Assessment of Efficiency .................................................................................. 15
Assessment of Effectiveness ............................................................................. 16
Scoring Criteria for Assessment Tool ................................................................. 17
Clustering of Projects for Economy Assessment .................................................. 22
Clustering of Municipalities/Cities ..................................................................... 22
Clustering of TDG, SFG and DDEG Projects ....................................................... 23
Clustering of URF funded Projects .................................................................... 23
Weighting ....................................................................................................... 23
CHAPTER THREE ....................................................................................................24
DETAILED FINDINGS PER PROJECT ......................................................... 24

Project Title: Rehabilitation of Kampala Road (2.058km), Lugard Avenue ............. 24
(0.123km), Apollo Square (0.115km), Hill Lane (0.141km) Market Street ............. 24
(0.130km) and Auxiliary (0.387km) Roads in Entebbe Municipal Council ...............24
under USMID-AF ............................................................................................. 24
Project details ................................................................................................ 24
Scope of Works .............................................................................................. 24
Status of the project at the time of Audit .......................................................... 25
Assessment of Economy .................................................................................. 26
Assessment of Efficiency ................................................................................. 30
Assessment of Effectiveness ............................................................................ 38
3.2 Project Title: Upgrading of Busambaga Road to bitumen standard phase II .......... 45
3.2.2 Scope of works ...............................................................................................45
3.2.3 Status of the project at the time of audit .......................................................... 45
3.2.4 Assessment of Economy .................................................................................. 46
2.2.3 Assessment of Efficiency ................................................................................. 48
3.2.4 Assessment of Effectiveness ............................................................................ 55
i
3.3 Project Title: Stone pitching along Busambaga Road Phase 2 .............................. 59
3.3.1 Project details ................................................................................................ 59
3.3.2 Scope of works ...............................................................................................59
3.3.3 Status of works at the time of audit ................................................................. 59
3.4 Project Title: Chain Link fencing of Namate Playground .......................................70
3.4.1 Project details ................................................................................................ 70
3.4.2 Scope of works ...............................................................................................70
3.4.3 Status of chain link works at the time of audit ...................................................71
3.5 Project Title: Renovations of Toilets at Kiwafu P/S ..............................................80
3.5.1 Project details ................................................................................................ 80
3.5.2 Scope of works ...............................................................................................80
3.5.3 Status of works at the time of audit ................................................................. 80
APPENDIX 1: PROJECT SCORE CARD .......................................................... 88
ii
ACRONYMS
Acronym Meaning
BoQs Bills of Quantities
CBR California Bearing Ratio
Ch. Chainage
CML Central Materials Laboratory
CRR Crushed Rock
DBST Double Bituminous Surface Treatment
DCP Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
DDEG Discretional Development Equalization Grant
DLP Defects Liability Period
DSD Double Surface Dressing
ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
FY Financial year
GCC General Conditions of Contract
GoU Government of Uganda
HRS Hours
IDA International Development Bank
IPCs Interim Payment Certificates
KM Kilometer
LGs Local Governments
MDD Maximum Dry Density
ME Municipal Engineer
MLHUD Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development
mm Millimeter
OAG Office of the Auditor General
OHS Operational Safety and Health
PAC Public Accounts Committee
PDU Procurement and Disposal Unit
PST Project Support Team
SC Supervising Consultant
SCC Special Conditions of Contract
SFG School Facilitation Grant
TDG Transitional Development Grant
ToRs Terms of Reference
UGX Uganda Shillings
URF Uganda Road fund
URF Uganda Road Fund
USD US Dollars
Uganda Support to Municipal Infrastructure Development - Additional
USMID – AF
Funding
VAT Value Added Tax
VFM Value for Money
VIP Ventilated Improved Pit Latrine
WB World Bank
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Government of Uganda represented by Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development
(MLHUD) secured an additional financing facility of USD 360 million from the International
Development Association (IDA/World Bank) to finance Uganda Support to Municipal
Infrastructure Development-Additional Financing (USMID-AF) Program in the
Municipalities/Cities. The Municipalities/Cities are Arua, Gulu, Lira, Soroti, Moroto, Tororo,
Mbale, Jinja, Kabale, Fort Portal, Hoima, Entebbe, Masaka, Kitgum, Mubende, Kasese, Kamuli,
Lugazi, Mbarara, Apac, Busia and Ntungamo.
One of the conditions of effectiveness of the program was for the government to have in
place complete annual performance assessment. The Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban
Development (MLHUD) requested the Auditor General to carry out a value for money
audit/assessment for USMID and non USMID infrastructure projects implemented in the
participating Municipalities/Cities in the financial year 2020/21.
The main objective of the audit was to undertake a Value for Money assessment of the
delivery of urban infrastructure undertaken by the Municipal Councils participating in the
Uganda Support to Municipal Infrastructure Development additional funding Program
(USMID-AF). The scope of the assessment covered all USMID funded infrastructure and a
selected number of non USMID financed infrastructure projects executed by the Municipality
in the Financial Year 2020/2021. The general approach was to audit one (1) USMID project
and five (5) non-USMID projects (2 URF projects and 3 SFG projects or vice versa) in the
financial year.
A participatory approach with the Ministry of Lands Housing and Urban Development
(MLHUD- USMID PST), Municipalities/Cities and World Bank was adopted. Project documents
including engineer’s estimates, designs, procurement files, works/material supply contracts,
progress reports, payment certificates, vouchers, quality control documents,
correspondences and minutes of management meetings were reviewed. Field inspections
were undertaken jointly with representatives of the respective Municipality/Cities for the
selected projects.
Performance was measured against a value for money assessment tool which was developed
and discussed with the stakeholders. In the assessment, the scoring tool considered
economy, efficiency and effectiveness with scores of 30%,35% and 35% respectively. The
scores for USMID and Non-USMID infrastructure projects were then combined by having
their scores weighted on a pro rata approach based on their cost. However, for
Municipalities/Cities with projects whose economy assessment was not applicable, separate
economy weights were computed to obtain the overall economy score.
For purposes of this assessment, six (6) infrastructure projects were supposed to be selected
and weights attached in relation to the project costs as shown in the table below. However,
the municipal council only implemented five (5) projects under the required funding
arrangements.
Audited Projects in FY 2020/2021
S/ Project Contract Weight Economy Fundin Method of
No amount (UGX) s (%) weights g execution
(%) Arrange
ment
1 Construction works for 13,440,379,271 91.81% 94.55% USMID Contracted
Rehabilitation to
Bitumen Standards of 6
Roads (2.954km)
1
2 Upgrading of 774,688,000 5.29% 5.45% URF Force

Busambaga Road to Account
bitumen standard
3 Stone pitching along 289,127,640 1.97% N/A URF Contracted
Busambaga Road Phase
2
4 Chain Link fencing of 101,821,020 0.70% N/A DDEG Contracted
Namate Playground
5 Renovations of Toilets 33,561,289 0.23% N/A DDEG Contracted
at Kiwafu P/S
Total cost 14,639,577,220 100.00 100.00%
%
Total for economy 14,215,067,271
The executive summary presents the results of the assessment and a summary of the
findings for each project in the Financial Year, conclusions, and recommendations for the city.
Chapter 1 presents the audit background, objectives, scope and project selection, Chapter 2
presents the approach and methodology used in the assessment and Chapter 3 presents the
detailed findings per project in the city.
RESULTS OF ASSESSMENT AND KEY FINDINGS

The assessment of economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the urban infrastructure
was delivered in Entebbe Municipal Council for the Financial Year 2020/2021 yielded a
weighted score 79.16% for the five (5) selected projects as presented in the table below;
Results of the Assessment

Projects USMID URF - URF - DDEG - DDEG - Weighted
Busambaga Busambaga Namate Kiwafu Score
bitumen stone pitching chain P/S
link
Weight (%) 91.81% 5.29% 1.97% 0.70% 0.23%
Economy 94.55% 5.45% N/A N/A N/A
weights (%)
Economy 28.84 22.05 N/A N/A N/A 28.47
Efficiency 23.33 12.00 28.00 32.67 23.33 22.89
Effectiveness 28.52 18.00 19.44 32.00 27.05 27.80
Total 80.69 52.05 67.78 92.38 71.97 79.16
Economy Assessment Weighted Score 28.47 out of 30

Economy assessment related to the unit cost of delivery of the infrastructure against works
of similar nature, quality, and quantity. In this assessment, selected unit project item costs
as per Engineer’s Estimates, signed Contracts and, actual Unit cost per square meter of
road/building works across the Municipalities/Cities in the same cluster were compared.
During the comparison of the Engineer’s estimates and Contractor’s/ suppliers’ rates across
the Municipalities/Cities, five key items were assessed;
 USMID funded projects; precast concrete class 30 barrier kerbs, bush clearing and
grubbing, CRR for road base, asphalt concrete for surfacing, white lines broken or
unbroken for road marking,
 URF funded projects - (force account); 600mm diameter culverts, chippings, gravel,
cement and fuel.
2
For the DDEG projects and the URF contaxted projects, economy assessment was not
applicable.
The combined weighted economy score of 28.47 out of 30 implies that there were small
disparities in the engineer’s estimates, contractor’s/supplier’s rates and unit cost per square
meter of infrastructure for the assessed USMID and URF. The disparities can be attributed to
the absence of standardized guidelines for costing of civil works in the Municipalities. The
highest disparities for the Municipality are shown in the table below;
Highest disparities in the Municipality

Funding Engineer’s Estimates Contract Rates Unit Cost/Sqm
Modality
USMID 1.50 times the lowest for 1.14 times the lowest 1.04 time the lowest
white lines broken or for CRR for road base. cost per square meter.
unbroken
URF 1.23 times the lowest for 1.55 times the lowest 1.55 times the lowest
600mm diameter for cement. cost per square meter.
concrete culverts.
Efficiency Assessment Weighted Score 22.89 out of 35

It related to the assessment of the level of implementation of the works against the agreed
contract approved work programs and outputs. This involved review of; progress of the
works against time, existence and effectiveness of internal controls for certification, payment
of executed works and contract supervision and monitoring arrangements.
The following parameters were assessed; physical progress lag, presence of detailed
payment supporting documentation, payment above certified amounts, percentage of
overpayments, timeliness in payments, percentage of quality progress reports, presence of
site meeting minutes, percentage of approved supervising personnel on site, percentage of
approved equipment on site, presence of detailed certificate of completion and snag list,
presence of As-built drawings and maintenance manuals, presence of DLP
progress/monitoring reports and presence of Detailed Liability Certificate.
The efficiency assessment revealed that the assessment of physical progress lag based on
initial work program for the USMID project and one (01) of the URF funded project could not
be undertaken due to insufficient information. However, the two (02) DDEG funded projects
and the other URF funded project were completed within the programmed completion dates
thereby registering no physical progress lags.
Further, the USMID project was still within the initial contract duration and so assessment of
physical progress lag based on revised work program was not applicable and one of the URF
projects still did not have sufficient information to enable assessment of physical progress
lag based on revised work program.
It was noted that detailed payment supporting documents were availed for USMID funded
project and the two (02) URF funded projects. However, they were not availed for the two
(02) DDEG funded projects.
Audit also noted that save for one (01) URF project where some payment documentation
were missing and so audit could not conclusively assess payment above certified amount, all
the other projects had their payments consistent with the certified amounts.
3
An overpayment of UGX.3,982,990 was noted on one (01) of the URF funded projects while
for all the other projects, no overpayment was noted on the sampled items.
Audit also noted that save for one (01) DDEG funded project where all the payments were
made in time, the other DDEG funded project had some missing payment documentation
and so audit could not conclusively assess timeliness of their payments while for the USMID
and the two (02) URF funded projects, there were some delays noted in the payments.
The Municipality provided adequate and good quality project progress reports on the USMID
funded project and one of the DDEG funded project while for the two (02) URF funded
projects, some reports were availed but they were of poor quality and no report was availed
for the other DDEG funded project.
Further, it was observed that save for one (01) DDEG funded project where no site meeting
minutes were provided, all the other projects had site meeting minutes on file.
Adequate personnel were mobilized for all the projects. There was also evidence that
equipment was adequately mobilized on the USMID funded project and on one (01) of the
URF funded projects; however, for the other URF funded project and the two (02) DDEG
funded projects, there was no evidence that the required equipment was mobilized during
construction.
The weighted efficiency score of 22.89 out of 35 was mainly due to lack of information for
the audit team in assessment of some of the parameters like physical progress lag, payment
above certified amounts and timeliness in payments and also due to delays in payments and
absence of quality progress reports on most of the projects.
Effectiveness Assessment Weighted Score 27.80 out of 35

Effectiveness involved assessment of the usage and quality of the infrastructural works
undertaken. The team assessed the following parameters; presence of material test results
on file, percentage conformance of site works to design drawings and specifications,
percentage of conformance of audit test results to specifications, presence of defects from
visual observations observed functionality and usage, presence of an ESIA/ESMF or
environmental screening report, evidence of fulfillment of environmental and social
protection measures and evidence of fulfilment of OSH measures.
The effectiveness assessment revealed that for the USMID funded project 90% of the
expected material test results were availed while for the two (02) URF funded projects,
14.29% and 60% were availed and for the two (02) DDEG funded projects, no material test
results were availed.
On conformance of works to design drawings and physical specifications, all the checks
made on the USMID funded project and one of the DDEG funded projects conformed to the
physical specifications while for the two URF funded projects and the other DDEG funded
project, the drawings and specifications were not availed so the check was not carried out.
Furthermore, audit tests conducted on the USMID project, one of the URf project and one of
the DDEG project all passed while for the other URF and DDEG funded project s, audit tests
were not conducted.
Physical inspection of the works revealed no visible defects on the USMID and DDEG funded
projects while for the URF funded projects, minor defects were observed.
At the time of audit, the USMID funded project was on-going and so its functionality wasn’t
assessed. The URF and DDEG funded projects were functional and in use.
4
All the projects had the screening report and/or ESMP in place. The USMID and one of the
URF funded projects did not have evidence of fulfilment of environmental protection
measures while all the other projects had. For the fulfilment of social protection measures
save for one URF project, all the other projects had evidence of their fulfilment while for the
fulfilment of OSH measures, one URF funded project and one DDED funded project did not
have evidence of their fulfilment while the other project had.
The score of 27.80 out of 35 is mainly attributed to absence of material test results, non-
conformance of site works to physical specifications and the inadequacies in the
implementation of environmental, health, social and safety measures.
Key Findings per Project

S/No. Project Finding
1. Rehabilitation of Economy
Kampala Road The score on economy was 28.84 out of 30.
(2.058km), Lugard  The Engineer’s rates for CRR for road bed and white lines
Avenue (0.123km), (broken or unbroken) were higher than the lowest in the
Apollo Square cluster.
(0.115km), Hill Lane  The contractor’s rates for CRR for road base were higher
(0.141km) Market Street than the lowest in the cluster.
(0.130km) and Auxiliary  The project’s unit cost per square meter was 1.04 times the
(0.387km) Roads in lowest in the cluster.
Entebbe Municipal
Council under USMID-AF Efficiency
The score on efficiency was 23.33 out of 35.
 Documentation showing the planned progress at audit time
was not availed so audit could not assess physical progress
lag based on initial work program.
 The works were still within the original contract duration so
assessment of physical progress lag based on revised work
program was not applicable.
 Payment for contractor’s site establishment was effected
without supporting documents such as a report on
contractor’s level of camp and office establishment.
 All payments by audit time were consistent with the
certified amounts.
 No overpayment was noted.
 Payment of fee notes 2, 3 and 4 were delayed by 12, 44
and 16 days respectively and payment for IPC No.2 was
delayed by one day.
 All the expected monthly progress reports were availed and
the quality was satisfactory.
 Eleven site meeting minutes were found on file.
 All the supervising staff were available on site as required.
 The contractor mobilized the required equipment to deliver
the project.
Effectiveness
The score on effectiveness was 28.52 out of 35
 9 out of 10 expected material test results were on the file
(90% availability).
 All the items checked conformed to the designs and
physical specifications.
 All the audit tests conducted passed.
 At the time of the audit, the major activity that was in
5
advanced stage was drainage works along Kampala Road

and no visible defects on the drainage structures.
 The works were still under and the progress was low.
 The Contractor submitted an ESMP for review and approval.
 Approvals for dump site and pit were not availed to the
audit team and it was noted that the Busambaga borrow pit
was not fenced and no dust arrester was in place.
 The borrow pit at Busambaga had no sanitary facilities and
there was also no evidence that the contractor had
facilitated formation of a worker’s council.
 It was observed that appropriate and necessary safety
measures such as works warning signs, danger warning
tapes and barricades were in place.
2. Upgrading of Busambaga Economy
Road to bitumen The score on economy was 22.05 out of 30.
standard • The Engineer’s estimates for 600mm diameter concrete
culverts and fuel were higher than the lowest in the cluster
while the rate for cement was not availed to the audit team.
• The supplier’s rate for 600mm diameter concrete culverts,
fuel and cement were higher than the lowest in the cluster.
• The project’s unit cost per square meter was 1.55 times the
lowest in the cluster.
Efficiency
The score on efficiency is 12.00 out of 30
• Final report was dated 14th August 2021 but it did not
mention when the project was completed so the audit team
could not determine whether the works were completed
within the initial project duration.
• Payment supporting documents like Goods received notes
for gravel and aggregates, fuel receipts and field
attendance were attached to the payments.
• Payment for supplies of gravel was not consistent with
certified amounts and for some items like hire of equipment
and fuel, the payment vouchers were not availed so audit
could not determine whether the payments were consistent
with certified amounts.
• An overpayment of UGX.3,982,989.53 was noted which was
equivalent to 0.5% of the final project amount.
• Some payments were delayed by days ranging from 4 to
133 days while for some, the payment vouchers were not
availed and so audit could not assess their timeliness in
payment.
• Only two of the expected four monthly progress reports
were availed and they were of insufficient quality.
• Two (02) site meeting minutes dated 20th May 2020 and
24th November 2020 were on file.
• A works supervisor and a works manager were appointed
vide letters dated 13th July 2020.
• Review of documents showed that several equipment had
been hired and that they were adequate to accomplish the
project.
Effectiveness
• Only one (01) of the expected seven (07) material test
results were on file (14.29% availability).
• Design drawings and physical specifications were not
6
availed so the audit team could not determine conformance

of executed works to design drawings and physical
specifications.
• All audit tests conducted met the requirements.
• Audit observed edge break failure at Ch. 0+710
and Stripping of surface dressing at Ch. 0+675.
• At the time of audit, the works had been completed and the
infrastructure was open to traffic with some minor defects.
• An ESMP was prepared and approved by the Accounting
Officer on 30th September 2019.
 There was no evidence showing that environmental social
and OSH measures were implemented.
3. Stone pitching along Economy
Busambaga Road Phase • This was a unique project and could not be compared with
2 the other selected projects since it had different items from
the selected ones. Economy assessment was therefore not
done and the scores obtained from efficiency and
effectiveness were converted to represent the score out of
100.
Efficiency
The score on efficiency was 28.00 out of 35
• Works were completed wthin the original project duration
hence there was no physical progress lag.
• Detailed payment supporting documents were prepared
• The payments made to the contractor were consistent with
the amounts certified.
• No overpayment was noted.
• Payment for IPC No.2 was made timely but payment for IPC
No.1 was delayed by 32 days.
• Three (03) of the expected four (04) monthly progress
reports were availed and they were of insufficient quality
due to lack of key information such as: level of contractor’s
equipment mobilization, quality control, health, safety and
social-environmental issues.
• Site meeting minutes dated 18th May 2021 were availed.
• A contract manager was appointed vide letter dated 22nd
December 2020.
• No evidence of equipment of mobilization of equipment
during contsruction
• Substantial completion certificate stating completion date as
30th May 2021 was issued but no snag list was attached to
it.
• There were no conditions of contract specifying the
requirements of as-built drawings.
• There were no defects liability monitoring/inspection reports
on file.
Effectiveness
• 3 of the expected 5 tests were present (60% availability).
• Design drawings and physical specifications were not
availed so the audit team could not determine conformance
of executed works to specifications.
• Audit tests were not carried out.
• Audit team observed failure at Ch. 0+855 LHS and
damaged works at 0+865.
• At the time of audit (15th June, 2022), the works had been
7
completed and the drainage channel was operational but

with some defects affecting its functionality.
• An ESMP was prepared and approved by the Accounting
Officer on 30th Sept, 2020.
• There was evidence of fulfillment of environmental, social
and OSH measures.
4. Chain-Link fencing Economy
Namate Primary School -  This was a unique project and could not be compared with
DDEG the other selected projects since it had different items from
100.
Efficiency
 There was no physical progress lag as the project was
completed within the intended period.
 Detailed payment supporting documents were not availed.
 Payment of IPC No.1 was consistent with certified amounts.
 No overpayment was noted.
 Payment of IPC No.1 was made timely.
 The two expected monthly progress reports were both
availed and the quality was good.
 Two (2) site meetings minutes dated 14th April 2021 and 1st
December 2021 were on file.
 A contract manager was duly appointed vide letter dated 1st
February 2021.
 The contractor mobilized equipment/tools such as; tipper
lorry, spades and concrete mixer which were adequate to
deliver the project.
 A substantial completion certificate stating the project
completion date as 30th April 2021 and accompanied with a
snag list was issued.
 “As-built” drawings were not available on file.
 There were DLP monitoring reports during the Defects
Liability Period.
 A defects liability certificate showing the defects liability end
date as 1st November 2021was issued.
Effectiveness
 No material test results were on file.
 The two (02) items checked both conformed to design
drawings and physical specifications.
 All the audit tests conducted fulfilled the specification
requirements.
 There were no visible defects observed on the infrastructure
at the time of audit.
 At the time of audit, the works had been completed. and
the project works were observed to be in good shape and
serving their intended purpose.
 The City Environmental Officer prepared an ESMP which
was approved by the Accounting Officer on 30th Sept,
2020.
 There was evidence of fulfillment of environmental, social
and OSH measures.
5. Renovation of toilet at Economy
8
Kiwafu P.S - DDEG • This was a unique project and could not be compared with
the other selected projects since it had different items from
100.
Efficiency
• There was no physical progress lag as the project was
completed within the intended period.
• Detailed payment supporting documents in form of detailed
measurement sheets were not available.
• Payments for both IPC No:1 and retention certificate were
consistent with certified amounts.
• No overpayment was noted.
• The conditions of contract were not availed so the audit
team could not tell the specified period of time within which
payments were to be effected. Audit could therefore not
assess the timeliness in payments.
• No progress report was on file.
• No site meeting minutes were on file.
• A contract manager was appointed vide letter dated 23rd
April 2021.
• Information that could be utilized to establish the
contractor’s level of equipment mobilization during
construction was not availed.
• There was no completion certificate on file.
• “As-built” drawings were not available.
• There were defects liability progress/monitoring reports.
• The Defects Liability Certificate stating the end of defects
liability period as 2nd Dec 2021 was prepared.
Effectiveness
• No material test results were on file.
• The audit team did not carry out any checks on site works.
• The audit team did not carry out any tests since it was a
renovation without any structural elements and there was
also no material on site at the time of audit.
• The works had been completed at the time of audit and no
visible defects were observed on the works done under this
contract.
• At the time of audit (22nd June 2022), the works had been
completed and the facility was in use.
• There was evidence of fulfillment of environmental and
social protection measures.
• There was no information on file pertaining the fulfilment of
OSH measures.
9
OVERALL AUDIT CONCLUSION

The assessment of economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which urban infrastructure
was delivered by Entebbe Municipal Council in the FY 2020/2021 yielded a weighted score
of 79.16% for all projects.
RECOMMENDATIONS
USMID Funded Infrastructure

In order to address the disparities in the engineer’s estimates, contract rates and unit cost
per square metre of infrastructure, government should formulate standardized guidelines for
costing of civil works in the Municipalities/Cities. This can be done on a regional basis with
specific rate adjustment indices for the different Municipalities.
To ensure proper documentation of project timelines and progress details, the Accounting
Officers should ensure that work programmes are prepared by contractors and approved
immediately after contract signing, commencement orders given out to contractors and at
practical completion of works, substantial completion certificates should be issued for all
contracted projects and detailed completion reports for the executed works prepared.
 The Accounting Officer should always ensure that payment supporting documents are
provided for each item considered for payment.
 The Accounting Officer should ensure that payment of contractor’s IPCs and Consultant’s
fee notes are made timely as per the terms in the signed contracts.
 The Accounting Officer should ensure that all materials used for construction are tested
or certified by the responsible authorities to ensure conformance to quality requirements.
 The Accounting Officer should ensure that all the required approvals are obtained to
ensure compliance to the environmental and social protection measures.
Non-USMID Funded Infrastructure

1. In order to address the disparities in the engineer’s estimates, contract/supplier rates
and unit cost per square metre of infrastructure, government should formulate
standardized guidelines for costing of civil works in the Municipalities/Cities. This can be
done on a regional basis with specific rate adjustment indices for the different
Municipalities.
2. To ensure proper documentation of project timelines and progress details, the
Accounting Officer should ensure that work programmes are prepared and approved,
commencement orders given out and at practical completion of works, substantial
completion certificates should be issued for all contracted projects and detailed
completion reports for the executed works prepared.
3. The Accounting Officer should put in place measures to ensure that works are always
executed and completed as per the planned timeline and where contractors fail to deliver
on time, liquidated damages should be charged.
4. The Accounting Officer should ensure that works are always measured during the
certification process, detailed measurement sheets prepared and attached to the
payment certificates for all contracted building or road projects. In addition, tally sheets
and goods received notes should always be prepared for materials supplied for force on
account projects.
5. The overpayment of UGX.3,982,989.53 in the URF funded project should be recovered

and appropriate action taken.
10
6. The Accounting Officer should put in place measures to ensure that payments to
contractors and material suppliers are always made within the stipulated timelines.
7. For all projects, the Accounting Officer should ensure that the frequency and quality of
progress reports is improved. The reports should be prepared on a monthly basis and
should cover all project aspects including but not limited to physical and time progress,
quality control, financial details, personnel, equipment used, weather conditions and
summarised minutes of meetings.
8. The Accounting Officer should ensure that regular site meetings are conducted to assess
works progress and timely devise solutions to challenges and minutes of these meetings
should be prepared, signed and kept on file.
9. The Accounting Officer should put in place measures to ensure that in the course of
execution of works, contractors always adequately mobilize all the equipment as per the
contractual requirements.
10. The Accounting Officer should ensure that once projects reach substantial completion,
the works are inspected to check for any defects and a snag list developed that is issued
together with the certificate of substantial completion.
11. The Accounting Officer should ensure that as-built drawings or strip maps are prepared
and maintenance and operating manuals provided since they are vital during
maintenance of the respective projects.
12. The Accounting Officer should ensure that projects are inspected during the defects
liability period in order to update the snag lists on the rectified defects or any new
defects that may develop and then prepare a defects monitoring report.
13. The Accounting Officer should ensure that all materials used for construction are tested
or certified by the responsible authorities to ensure conformance to quality requirements.
This can be done by drawing up a quality assurance plan and ensuring that project
managers adhere to it.
14. The Accounting Officer should ensure that the identified defects are further investigated
and rectified as soon as possible. Performance of the different infrastructure should be
monitored even after expiry of the defects liability period to ensure early identification of
failure and remedial measures taken in time.
15. The Accounting Officer should put in place measures to ensure that all environmental,
social protection and occupational health and safety measures are fulfilled during the
execution of the works.
John F. S. Muwanga
AUDITOR GENERAL
31st May, 2023
11
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Article 163(3) of the 1995 Constitution of The Republic of Uganda requires the Auditor
General (AG) to conduct Financial and Value for Money (VFM) Audits in respect of any
project involving public funds.
This mandate is further amplified by Section 21 of the National Audit Act (NAA) 2008
which gives the Auditor General powers to conduct financial and value for money audits
for purposes of establishing economy, efficiency and effectiveness of any Ministry,
Department or Agency (MDA), Public Organization and any Local Government Council.
Section 40 of the National Audit Act, 2008, empowers the Auditor General to engage the
services of, or work in consultation with Professional or Technical Experts or Consultants
whether in the public service or not, to enhance the performance of the OAG.
Background
Government of Uganda (GoU) represented by Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban
Development (MLHUD) is securing an additional financing facility of USD 360 million
from the International Development Association (IDA/World Bank) to finance Uganda
Support to Municipal Infrastructure Development-Additional Financing (USMID-AF)
Program.
During the second year of the program for financial year 2020/21 , the program
participating Municipalities were increased to twenty two municipal councils in Uganda
and the Municipalities/Cities are, Arua City, Gulu City, Kitgum Municipality , Lira City ,
Apac Municipality, Soroti City, Moroto Municipality, Mbale City, Tororo Municipality, Busia
Municipality, Kamuli Municipality, Jinja City, Lugazi Municipality, Entebbe City, Hoima
City, Mubende Municipality, Fortportal City, Kasese Municipality, Mbarara City, Ntungamo
Municipality, Kabale Municipality and Masaka City.
One of the conditions for effectiveness of the program is for government to have in
place a complete annual performance assessment report covering all the agreed linked
disbursement indicators. Accordingly, as part of this requirement, the Ministry of Lands,
Housing and Urban Development (MLHUD) has requested for a value for money
audit/assessment for USMID and non-USMID infrastructure projects which were
implemented in the financial year 2020/21 in the 22 Municipalities and Cities that
participated in the USMID-AF implementation during the FY2020/21. The VFM
assessment for the financial year 2020/2021 will generate comparable results across
participating Municipalities and Cities.
Audit Objectives
The main objective of the audit is to undertake a Value for Money assessment of the
delivery of urban infrastructure undertaken by the twenty-two (22) Municipal/city
Councils participating in the Uganda Support to Municipal Infrastructure Development
Additional Funding Program (USMID-AF).
The Specific objectives of the VFM included:

i. Economy Assessment
This focused on the quantity, quality and unit cost of the infrastructure and
making comparison with similar infrastructure design implemented in another City
or sector.
12
ii. Efficiency Assessment

This focused on the time taken to deliver a given quantity and quality of an
infrastructure and included but was not be limited to:
a. Evaluation of the level of implementation of works against agreed contract
timelines
b. Evaluation of existence and effectiveness of internal controls for certification
and payment of executed works.
c. Review of contract supervision and monitoring arrangements and recommend

measures needed to address shortcomings in execution of the contracts.
iii. Effectiveness Assessment

This focused on the extent to which the works were delivered with the intended
quality and meet the intended purpose and usage. It also covered an assessment
of fulfilment of environmental, health, social and safety safeguards.
Audit Scope
The audit focused on the USMID project and a sample of other non-USMID financed
projects undertaken in the FY 2020/2021.
Selection of Projects
Projects were selected from the infrastructure projects undertaken by the Municipality in
the financial year under review. Generally, for the Municipality, 1 USMID funded project
was selected in addition to Five (5) non-USMID projects where applicable. Selection of
the non-USMID projects was based on the following agreed criteria:
 Funding arrangements: Projects were selected based on the specified funding

arrangements: Uganda Road Fund Projects (URF), Schools facilitation Grant (SFG),
Discretional Development Grant (DDEG) and Transitional Development Grant (TDG).
The above funding arrangements were based on the fact that they cut across all the
participating Municipalities.
 Materiality: Projects with higher implementation/contract amounts were considered
in preference to those with lower contract/implementation amounts.
 Type of infrastructure: Projects were selected based on two categories i.e. Civil
works (Buildings and roads) and electromechanical.
Under this criterion, five (05) projects were selected for audit and these comprised one
(1) USMID, two (2) URF, one (1) SFG and one (1) DDEG funded project.
The following table shows projects selected and their corresponding weights for Entebbe
Municipal Council in the Financial Year 2020/21.
Percentage Weights of Selected Projects

S/No Project Contract Weights Economy Fundi Method of
amount (UGX) (%) weights ng execution
(%) Arran
geme
nt
13
1 Construction 13,440,379,271 91.81% 94.55% USMID Contracted

works for
Rehabilitation to
Bitumen
Standards of 6
Roads (2.954km)
2 Upgrading of 774,688,000 5.29% 5.45% URF Force
Busambaga Account
Road to bitumen
standard
3 Stone pitching 289,127,640 1.97% N/A URF Contracted
along
Busambaga
Road Phase 2
4 Chain Link 101,821,020 0.70% N/A DDEG Contracted
fencing of
Namate
Playground
5 Renovations of 33,561,289 0.23% N/A DDEG Contracted
Toilets at Kiwafu
P/S
Total cost 14,639,577,220 100.00% 100.00%
Total for economy 14,215,067,271
14
CHAPTER TWO
AUDIT METHODOLOGY
The audit was carried out in accordance with the International Organization of
Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) Performance Auditing Standards and Value for
money (VFM) Auditing guidelines prescribed in the Office of the Auditor General (OAG)
VFM audit manual.
The standards require that the audit is planned in a manner which ensures that an
audit of high quality is carried out in an economic, efficient and effective way, and in
a timely manner.
The audit was based on a Value for Money (VFM) assessment tool that evaluated
economy, efficiency and effectiveness to ensure attainment of the specific audit
objectives. This tool was developed in consultation with USMID Program Support
Team and the World Bank.
Assessment of Economy
This related to an assessment of the unit cost of infrastructure and made
comparisons with similar quantity and quality of infrastructure implemented in other
Municipalities/Cities that fell within the same cluster.
Economy assessment related to a comparison of the following parameters derived

from each Municipality with the lowest within the respective cluster of
Municipalities/Cities.
 Selected unit item costs as per Engineer’s estimates;
 Selected unit item costs as per the works contracts;
 Unit cost per square meter of works.
To ensure realistic and comparable assessment of the unit cost per square meter for
road works, preliminary and general items, and earthworks were excluded; while for
buildings, only Preliminary and general items were excluded.
The documents reviewed for this assessment included but were not limited to;
Engineers’ estimates, works contracts, material supplies’ contracts, and force account
planning documentation.
Assessment of Efficiency
In the assessment of efficiency, the following was undertaken:
i. An assessment of the progress of works against time; this was assessed by
determining the physical progress lag as the difference between the planned physical
progress and actual physical progress as at the time of audit;
ii. An evaluation of the existence and effectiveness of internal controls for certification
and payment of executed works; this was assessed by checking for the availability of
detailed payment supporting documentation, comparison of certified amounts with
the amounts paid out, quantity verification through comparison of certified quantities
with measured quantities, assessing timeliness of payments by determining any
delays in the payment for executed works/services and materials supplied;
iii. A review of the contract supervision and monitoring arrangements; In undertaking
this review, an assessment was made on the number and quality of progress reports
prepared, availability of minutes of site meetings, comparison of approved
15
supervising personnel with personnel involved in the supervision of the works and
comparison of approved equipment with equipment found on site.
iv. For completed projects, a review of the contract supervision and monitoring
arrangements during project closure was done; in undertaking this review, an
assessment was made of presence of detailed Completion Certificate/ Taking-Over
Certificate, the presence of as-built drawings and maintenance manuals, the number
and quality of DLP progress/ monitoring reports prepared and presence of the
Defects Liability Certificate.
The documents reviewed for this assessment included; civil works contracts,
consultancy/service contracts, Interim Payment Certificates, fee notes and payment
vouchers, measurement/calculation sheets, time sheets, work programs, progress
reports, minutes of site meetings, material delivery notes, material supplies’
contracts, EHSS progress reports, force account planning documentation,
Environment screen reports among others.
Field inspections and measurement of some of the executed works were undertaken
in the presence of a representative of the PDE, the contractor and Supervision
Consultants, and quantities of sampled works were measured and compared to
respective quantities certified for payment so as to assess the accuracy in valuation
of the works.
Assessment of Effectiveness
The assessment focused on the quality and usage of the infrastructural works
undertaken by the Municipalities. The following were undertaken:
i. An assessment of the quality of works under implementation; this was assessed by
checking for the percentage of material test results on file, comparing site works to
the design requirements, comparing audit material test results of sampled items to
specifications, and visually checking for the presence of any defects on the works;
ii. An assessment on the utilization of the infrastructure; this involved undertaking site
visits to assess the usage and functionality of the completed or partially completed
infrastructure;
iii. An assessment of the level of compliance with the Environmental and Social
Safeguards as well as the implementation of Health and Safety requirements on
active sites.
The documents reviewed for this assessment included; material test results, civil
works contracts, monthly progress reports, original design reports/drawings, design
review reports and drawings, Special specifications, Environment, Health and Social
Management reports, environment screening reports among others.
Field inspections were undertaken at or along each of the implemented projects to

assess the level of compliance to EHSS safeguards requirements as well as assess
the impact of the completed or ongoing infrastructure projects on the environment,
to check for defects, to carry out in-situ tests and collect samples for laboratory
tests for comparison with technical specifications.
Additionally, field inspections were carried out at auxiliary sites such as quarry sites,
dump sites, borrow pits, contractor’s camp sites, site clinics etc. The visits intended
to assess the level of compliance of contractor’s to EHSS requirements.
16
Value for Money Audit/assessment of the Municipalities participating in the Uganda Support to Municipal Infrastructure Development - Additional Funding (USMID-AF) program
Scoring Criteria for Assessment Tool

The scoring tool in the Table 2- 1 below was used to assess projects executed. Detailed scoring for the economic aspect of the
Municipalities is in Table 2- 2 and Table 2- 3 below.
Table 2-1: Assessment Tool Criteria
No Objective Sub-Objective Parameters Criteria
1 To assess the unit cost of To assess the price Unit project item costs as per Engineer’s See table 2-2 for the Basis of the
delivery of the differences between Estimates. (5 Marks) Scoring Criteria; and Table 2-3 for
infrastructure against similar quality and the Scoring Criteria for the Economy
Unit project item costs as per signed
works of similar nature quantity of works (30 Parameters
Contracts (10 Marks)
(Economy) Max points Marks)
– 30 Unit cost per square meter of road/building
works among the Municipalities (15 Marks).
2 To assess the level of To assess the progress of Physical progress lag – (difference between Physical lag ≤ 5% - 5mks; >5% - ≤
implementation of the the works against time the planned as derived from initial work 10% -4mks; >10% - ≤ 20% -
works against the agreed (10 Marks) program and actual physical progress) (5 3mks; >20% - ≤ 25% -2mks; >25%
contract approved work Marks) - ≤ 30% -1mk; above 30% - 0mks
programs and outputs
Physical progress lag – (difference between Physical lag ≤ 5% - 5mks; >5% - ≤
(Efficiency) Max points
the planned as derived from the current 10% -4mks; >10% - ≤ 20% -
– 35
approved revised work program and actual 3mks; >20% - ≤ 25% -2mks; >25%
physical progress) (5 Marks). - ≤ 30% -1mk; above 30% - 0mks
To assess the existence Presence of detailed payment supporting Detailed payment supporting
and effectiveness of documentation e.g. measurement sheets (2 documentation present – 2mks;
internal controls for Marks) Absent – 0mks.
certification and payment
Payment above certified amounts (IPCs, fee No payment above certified amount
of executed works (18
notes, material supply invoices etc.) (3 – 3mks; Any payment above certified
Marks)
Marks) amount -0mks
% of overpayment (as a result of variance 0% overpayment -10mks; >0% -
between audit values and certified works) to ≤5% - 5mks; >5 - ≤10% - 2mks;
the certified value of the works (10 Marks) above 10% - 0mks
Timeliness in payment of IPCs, fee notes, Payment within contractual provision
17
material supply invoices etc. (3 Marks) – 3mks; Otherwise – 0mks

To Review contract % of quality progress reports prepared (2 100% quality reports – 2mks;
Supervision and Marks) otherwise - 0mks
monitoring arrangements
(7 Marks) Presence of Minutes of Site Meetings (2 Minutes of site meetings present –
Marks) 2mks, Otherwise - 0
% of approved supervising personnel on site 100% personnel – 2mks; otherwise -
(2 Marks) 0mk
% of approved equipment on site (1 Mark) 100% equipment – 1mk; otherwise -
0mk
To Review contract Presence of detailed certificate of completion At least 3/4 parameters present
Supervision and and snag list - Satisfactory, otherwise,
monitoring arrangements unsatisfactory.
during project Closure Presence of As-built drawings and
(Satisfactory, maintenance manual
unsatisfactory) Presence of DLP progress/monitoring reports
Prescience of detailed Liability Certificate
3 To assess the usage and To assess the quality of Percentage of Material test results on file (3 100% present – 3mks, 90% -
quality of the works under Marks) ≤100% - 2mks; 80% - ≤90% - 1mk,
infrastructural works implementation (19 Less than 80% - 0mk
undertaken by the Marks)
% conformance of site works to design 100% conformance – 5mks, <100%
Municipalities
drawings and physical specifications (5 - ≥80% - 3mks, <80% - ≥60% -
(effectiveness) Max
Marks) 1mk, Less than 60% - 0mk
points - 35
% conformance of audit test results to 100% conformance – 8mks, 99% -
specifications (8 Marks) ≥80% - 3mks, 79% - ≥60% - 1mk,
Less than 60% - 0mk
Presence of defects from visual observations No defects observed – 3mks; Minor
18
(3 Marks) defects observed – 2mks; Major

defects observed - 0mks
To assess the utilization of Observed Functionality and Usage (8 Marks) Functioning and used as intended –
the infrastructure (8 8mks; below – pro-rata basing on
Marks) team judgement
To assess the fulfillment/ Presence of an ESIA/ESMF or environmental Presence of an ESIA/ESMF or
adequacy of implemented screening report (2 Marks) environmental screening report -
environmental, 2mks, otherwise 0mks
Health, social &
Evidence of fulfillment of environmental Evidence of fulfillment of
safety measures (8
protection measures (2 Marks) environmental protection measures -
marks)
2 mks
Evidence of fulfillment of social protection Evidence of fulfillment of social
measures (2 Marks) protection measures - 2 mks
Evidence of fulfillment of Evidence of fulfillment of OSH
OSH measures (2 Marks) measures - 2 mks
Table 2-2: Assessment Criteria/methodology for the Economy Parameters

S/No. Economy Parameter Item Assessment Criteria/ Methodology
1 Unit project item costs as Item 1, (1 mark) 5 items that were common to all USMID & Non USMID Municipal works contracts
per Engineers Estimates. (5 Item 2, (1 mark) were selected as shown in table 2-3. The unit cost of each of these items was
Marks) Item 3, (1 mark) obtained from the Engineer’s estimates.
Item 4, (1 mark)
Item 5, (1 mark) The lowest unit cost for a particular item across the Municipalities/Cities (in the same
cluster) was given the maximum score of 1. The scores (Si) of the other
Municipalities/Cities for that particular item were computed using the formula; �� =
� � ��/� , in which Fm is the lowest unit cost for a particular item across the
Municipalities/Cities and F is the unit cost of a particular item for the Municipality/City
under consideration.
Each of the items selected was assessed separately across the Municipalities/Cities in
the cluster. The highest unit cost was used in cases where the unit cost for a
particular item varies within the same contract.
19
The total score for this parameter for the Municipality/City was the sum of the scores
obtained for all the 5 items selected.
In Municipalities/Cities where the engineer’s estimates for some items were not
applicable, these were not considered and a conversion factor was applied in the
respective cases.
2 Unit project item costs as Item 1, (2marks) 5 items that were common to all USMID & Non USMID Municipal/City works contracts
per signed Contracts. were selected. The unit cost of each of these items was obtained from the signed
Item 2, (2 marks)
(10 Marks) contracts.
Item 3, (2marks)
The lowest unit cost for a particular item across the Municipalities/Cities in the
Item 4, (2 marks) selected/chosen cluster was given the maximum score of 2. The scores (Si) of the
Item 5, (2 marks) other Municipalities/Cities in the selected cluster for that particular item were
computed using the formula; �� = ��/�, in which Fm is the lowest unit cost for a
particular item across the Municipalities/Cities in the selected cluster and F is the unit
cost of a particular item for the Municipality/ City under consideration.
Each of the items selected was assessed separately across the Municipalities/Cities in
the cluster. The highest unit cost was used in cases where the unit cost for a
particular item varies within the same contract.
The total score for this parameter for the Municipality/City was the sum of the scores
obtained for all the 5 items selected.
In Municipalities/Cities where the contractor’s/supplier’s rates for some items were

not applicable, these were not considered and a conversion factor was applied in the
respective cases.
3 Unit cost per square meter Physical cost The unit cost per square meter of infrastructure was obtained by dividing the physical
of road/building works cost of the works by the area of the works.
Area
among the Municipalities.
Unit cost
(15 Marks)
The lowest unit cost per square meter across the Municipalities/Cities in a cluster for
a particular category infrastructure was given the maximum score of 15. The scores
(S) of the other Municipalities/Cities in the cluster for similar category of
20
infrastructure were computed using the formula; � = ��/� , in which Fm is the

lowest unit cost per square meter for a similar category of infrastructure across the
Municipalities and F is the unit cost per square meter of a similar infrastructure
category for the Municipality/City under consideration.
21
Value for Money Audit/assessment of the Municipalities participating in the Uganda Support to Municipal Infrastructure Development - Additio
Table 2-3: Items for comparison per project category

S/N Project Category Item Items for Comparison Units
1 USMID PROJECTS Item 1 Precast concrete Class 30 barrier M
kerbs
Item 2 Clearing and Grubbing Ha
Item 3 CRR for Road Base M3
Item 4 Asphalt Concrete for Surfacing M3
(AC 20)
Item 5 White lines, broken or unbroken M
2 SFG/DDEG/TDG Item 1 Roofing Sheets (gauge 28) M2
Item 2 Internal Plaster M2
Item 3 230mm walling M2
Item 4 Roofing Timber 100×50mm M
Item 5 Reinforced Concrete (C20) M3
3 URF (Force Item 1 600mm diameter concrete M
Account) culverts
Item 2 Chippings (14/20mm) M3
Item 3 Fuel Ltr
Item 4 Gravel M3
Item 5 Cement Bag
4 URF (Contracted) Item 1 600mm culverts M
Item 2 Concrete Class for drains (C25) M3
Item 3 Prime Coat Ltr
Item 4 First Seal Coat (14/20) M2
Item 5 Gravel for sub-base M3
Clustering of Projects for Economy Assessment

To achieve equitable comparison of rates and unit costs of projects, the audit
clustered all the 22 participating Municipalities/Cities. Furthermore, because of the
great variation observed in the scope of works across all the 22 participating
Municipalities/Cities for the Non-USMID funded projects, additional clustering was
done to carter for the different technologies and mode of implementation for the
comparison of project unit costs.
Clustering of Municipalities/Cities
Clustering of Municipalities/Cities was carried out following the geographical regions
of Uganda and four (4) clusters were made as shown in the Table below.
22
Table 2-4: Clustering of Cities/Municipalities

S/n Cluster Region Municipalities/Cities
1. Cluster 1 Central region Masaka city, Mubende Municipality, Entebbe
city and Lugazi Municipality.
2. Cluster 2 Western region Hoima city, Fort Portal city and Kasese
Municipality, Ntungamo Municipality, Kabale
Municipality and Mbarara city
3. Cluster 3 Eastern region Kamuli Municipality, Jinja city, Busia
cluster Municipality, Tororo Municipality, Soroti city,
and Mbale city
4. Cluster 4 Northern region Gulu city, Kitgum Municipality, Apac
cluster Municipality, Arua city, Moroto Municipality and
Lira city
Clustering of TDG, SFG and DDEG Projects

Sub-clusters in respect to the scope of works for TDG/SFG/DDEG projects were
created in order to ensure fair comparison of the unit costs of different projects. The
sub-clusters were as follow;
 Construction of classroom blocks and public/community halls;
 Construction of teachers houses, Office buildings and Markets;
 Construction of lined VIP latrines;
 Construction of water borne toilets.
Clustering of URF funded Projects

Clustering of the URF funded projects was done following the mode of
implementation as follows;
1. URF projects that were executed by force account; and
2. URF projects that were executed by contractors.
Weighting
Weighting of the projects was done to cater for financial risks associated with the
projects whilst giving consideration to infrastructure with a bigger monetary value.
Thus the weighting was done pro-rata to the costs of the infrastructure selected for
assessment, using the formula below;
Wx=Px/Σ (P1, 2.., N) where Wx is the weight for project x, Px is the project cost and N is
the number of projects selected.
23
CHAPTER THREE
DETAILED FINDINGS PER PROJECT

This section of the report shows the detailed findings per project.
Project Title: Rehabilitation of Kampala Road (2.058km), Lugard Avenue

(0.123km), Apollo Square (0.115km), Hill Lane (0.141km) Market Street
(0.130km) and Auxiliary (0.387km) Roads in Entebbe Municipal Council
under USMID-AF
Project details
The project details are presented in the following table.
Table 2-3: Project details

Procuremebt Reference Number ENTE752/WORKS/2020-2021/00008
Executing Agency Entebbe City Council
The City Engineer, Entebbe Municipal
Project Manager
Council
Project Manager’s Representative -
UB Consulting Engineers Ltd
Supervising/Design Review Consultant
Original Supervision Consultancy Amount UGX.1,993,800,000 Incl. VAT
Contract type Admeasurement
Contractor China Wu Yi Co ,Ltd
UGX.13,440,379,271; Excl. 18% VAT but
Original Contract Amount
Incl. 10% Contingencies
Original works Contract Signing Date 21st April 2021
AddendumNo.1 signing date 5th August 2022
Commencement Date 04th May 2021
Original Completion Date 04th August 2022
Revised Completion Date 04th December 2022
Defects Liability Period (DLP) 365 days
Physical Progress reported 33.1% (Progress report No.13 – June 2022)
Financial Progress reported 20.6% (Progress report No.13 – June 2022)
Audit inspection date 28th June 2022
Time Lapse 74% of the revised completion time
UGX.2,688,075,854.20 (20% of contract
Advance Payment
amount)
Scope of Works
Works on this USMID project comprises rehabilitation to bitumen standard of 6 roads
totaling to 2.954 Km; i.e., Kampala Road (2.058km), Market Street (0.130km), Hill
Lane (0.141km), Lugard Avenue (0.123km), Apollo Square (0.115km), Auxiliary Road
(0.387), and Beautification of Kampala Road, Lighting of Mayor’s Gardens and
Erection of Signage Boards at Strategic points within the Municipality.
24
The original scope involved the following:

 Drainage works;
 Earthworks;
 For some roads; Crushed Stone Subbase varying in thickness: 225mm, 300mm.
For other roads; Natural Gravel Subbase varying in thickness: 100mm, 125mm,
150mm;
 Crushed Stone Base on all roads but varying in thickness: 150mm, 175mm,
200mm, 250mm, 350mm;
 For some roads; Double Surface Dressing Asphalt. For other roads; 50mm Asphalt
Concrete Surfacing;
 Ancillary Road works including street lighting, tree planting among others.
The revision in scope following the design review by the supervision consultant
involved the following:
 The road length reduced by 0.264Km to a total of 2.690Km following deduction of
0.141Km Hill Lane and 0.123Km Lugard Avenue following the design review
changes;
 Subbase: 150mm thick Natural Gravel G30 was proposed for all roads.
Status of the project at the time of Audit

At the time of audit, Kampala road was at the last stages of culvert installation while
subgrade works were commencing at certain sections. Apollo square and Market
Street were all at culvert installation stages. No works had commenced on the other
roads.
Kampala Road
(2.058km)
Entire road was at
Culverts installation
1) level; preparation of
sub grade materials
and trial sections were
in progress
25
Market Street
(0.130km)
2) Culvert installation had
just commenced on
market street
Apollo Square (0.115)

The road was at
3)
Culvert installation
stage
Assessment of Economy
The score for economy was 28.84 out of 30 as detailed below:
(i) Comparison of unit project item costs as per Engineers estimates

A comparison of the engineer’s estimates of five (05) selected items for the USMID-AF
funded project in Entebbe Municipal Council was made against the lowest among the
Municipalities and the results of the assessment are presented in the table below:
Table 3.1-2: Comparison of Engineer’s estimates across

Cities/Municipalities
Bill item Uni Municipa Lowest Max. Project Proportion
t lity's rate score score of the
Eng. est. within (1*Fm/ (1*Fm/ Municipality
rate (F) the Fm) F) 's Eng. est.
(UGX) cluster rate to the
(Fm) lowest in
UGX the cluster
(1+(F-
Fm)/Fm)
Precast concrete m 50,309 50,309 1.00 1.00 1.00
class 30 barrier
kerbs
Clearing and ha 12,016,02 12,000,0 1.00 1.00 1.00
Grubbing 2 00
CRR for road base m3 155,997 150,000 1.00 0.96 1.04
26
Asphalt Concrete m3 408,699 408,699 1.00 1.00 1.00

for Surfacing
White lines ,broken m 15,000 10,000 1.00 0.67 1.50
or unbroken
Total score: 5.00 4.63
The score was 4.63 out of 5. The Engineer’s rates for two (02) items i.e. CRR for road
bed and white lines, broken or unbroken were higher than the lowest in the cluster.
27
(ii) Comparison of unit project item costs as per works contract

A comparison of the contractors’ rates of five (05) selected items for the USMID-AF
funded project in Entebbe Municipal Council was made against the lowest among the
Table 3-1-3: Comparison of contractor’s rates across Cities/Municipalities

Bill item Unit Contractor’s Lowest Max. Project Proportion of
rate (F) (UGX) rate score score the
within (2*Fm/ (2*Fm/ Municipality's
the Fm) F) Contractor’s
cluster rate to the
(Fm) lowest in the
UGX cluster (1+(F-
Fm)/Fm)
Precast m 40,000 40,000 2.00 2.00 1.00
concrete
class 30
barrier Kerbs
Clearing and ha 5,000,000 5,000,000 2.00 2.00 1.00
Grubbing
CRR for m3 155,000 136,500 2.00 1.76 1.14
Road Base
Asphalt m3 450,000 450,000 2.00 2.00 1.00
Concrete for
Surfacing
White m 8,000 8,000 2.00 2.00 1.00
lines ,broken
or unbroken
The score was 9.76 out of 10. The contractor’s rates for CRR for road base were
higher than the lowest in the cluster.
(iii) Comparison of unit cost per square meter of works

A comparison of the project unit cost per square meter was made against the lowest
exclusive of earthworks among the participating Municipalities in the cluster. The
results of the assessment are presented in table below:
Table 3.1-4: Comparison of project unit costs across Cities/Municipalities

Municipality's Lowest cost per Max. score Project Proportion of the
cost per square meter of (15*Fm/F) score Municipality's cost per
square meter infrastructure in (15*Fm/F) square meter to the
of the the cluster (Fm) lowest in the cluster
infrastructure UGX (1+(F-Fm)/Fm)
(F) UGX
287,388 276,764 15.00 14.45 1.04
28
The score was 14.45 out of 15.00 in comparison to the lowest cost per square meter
of the USMID funded project road works. The project’s unit cost per square meter
was 1.04 times the lowest in the cluster.
Management Response
We acknowledge the finding of the auditors. This is likely to have been caused by the
difference in geographical location that has an effect on the cost and source of
different materials such as asphalt.
Auditor’s Remark
The management response is noted but this could not have been caused by asphalt
concrete as it had thelowest rate in the cluster.
29
Assessment of Efficiency
The score on efficiency was 23.33 out of 35 as detailed below.
Finding Cause Implication Recommendation

(a) Assessment of progress of works against
time
(i) Assessment of physical progress lag basing
on initial work programme
The project commencement date was 4th May The Accounting Officer should
2021 with an execution duration of fifteen (15) put in place measures to
months implying that the intended completion ensure that works are always
date was 4th August 2022. Progress report No.13 Delayed completion of works
executed and completed as
for June 2022 showed that the physical progress Poor project management. denies beneficiaries timely
per the planned timeline and
by end of June was 33.1%. use of the infrastructure
where contractors fail to
Based on the elapsed time of 74%, it was evident deliver on time, liquidated
that the project was lagging behind but since no damages should be charged.
documentation that could show the planned
physical progress at that time was availed, audit
could not assess the physical progress based on
initial work program.
Management Response
We acknowledge the findings of the auditors. This was caused by delays in design reviews. A no cost extension of time was granted up to 4th Dec 2022.
Relevant approvals for the subbase material was done and the contractor has improved the speed of execution. Current progress is at about 80%.
Auditor’s Remark
The management response is noted.
(ii) Assessment of physical progress lag basing
on revised work programme
At the time of audit (28th June 2022), the works N/A N/A N/A
were still within the original project duration and
so this parameter was not applicable.
(b) Assessment of the existence and Risk of effecting payment The Accounting Officer should
effectiveness of internal controls for that is not commensurate always ensure that payment
30

certification and payment of executed with what is due to the supporting documents are
works contractor provided for each item
(i) Presence of detailed payment supporting considered for payment.
documents
Clause 17(4) of the PPDA (contracts) regulations
2014 requires that the actual works done are
measured during the performance of a contract
and finally reconciled on effecting payments.
Review of the interim payment certificates No: 1,
No: 2 and No: 3 indicated that payment
supporting documents (measurement sheets)
were prepared and attached to the payment
certificates. However, it was observed that
payment for contractor’s site establishment was
effected without supporting documents such as a
report on contractor’s level of camp and office
establishment.
Management Response
We acknowledge the finding of the auditors but wish to clarify that contractor’s establishment on site is evidenced by level of mobilization for equipment
and materials and also the setting up of the camp site. This is discussed and inspected at every site meeting. Attached is a copy for your verification.
Auditor’s Remark
The required report was not availed for verification.
(ii) Payment above certified amounts
Payments made to the contractor and consultant were
N/A OK OK
consistent with the certified amounts as shown in the
table below:
Contractor’s Payments
S/No Type of payment Certified amount (UGX) Paid amount (UGX) Payment above certified amount Remarks
1 Advance Payment 2,688,075,854.00 2,688,075,854.00 None OK
2 IPC No:1 977,719,229.00 977,719,229.00 None OK
3 IPC No:2 1,126,014,192.00 1,126,014,192.00 None OK
31

4 IPC No:3 842,659,126.00 842,659,126.00 None OK
Consultant’s payments
S/No Type of payment Certified amount (UGX) Paid amount (UGX) Payment above certified Remarks
amount
1 Fee Note No:1 179,945,500.00 179,945,500.00 None OK
(iii) Percentage of overpayments (as a result of
variance between audit values and certified
works) to the certified value of the works
The audit team undertook physical measurements of
N/A OK OK
the quantities of some of the constructed works and
these were compared with certified quantities and no
overpayment was obtained as shown in the table
below:
32
Assessment of % of overpayment (as a result of variance between audit values and certified works) to the certified value of the
works (10 Marks)
Item checked Unit Planned Rate Payment Audit Diff. between Amount Remarks
quantity (UGX) quantity quantity Audit & paid over paid
600mm diameter m 2,631 400,000 1,910.55 2,339.00 quantities -428.45 0 More works done since last
concrete culverts certified quantities
900mm diameter m 1,431 580,000 751.83 933.00 -181.17 0 More works done since last
concrete culverts certified quantities
Total Overpayment: 0
Total Payment (Final Contract Amount): 15,859,647,540
% Overpayment: 0
(iv) Timeliness in Payments

The civil works contract (GCC 52) and the supervision
consultancy contract (SCC 26.1) both specified Delayed payments negatively
effecting payment within 30 days of payment affect the Contractor’s and The Accounting Officer should
certification. For the civil works contracts, the days consultant’s cash flows which ensure that payment of
were defined to mean workings days. may negatively impact on contractor’s IPCs and
Review of the project management documents project delivery. Consultant’s fee notes are
revealed that the payments to the contractor were made timely as per the terms
generally made timely with payment for IPC No.2 Could lead to interest claims in the signed contracts.
delaying by only one day while for the payments to the due to delayed payments
Consultant, delays of 12 days, 44 days and 16 days
were noted in payments for Fee notes 2, 3 and 4
respectively as shown in the table below:
Contractor’s payments
S/No Type of payment Certified date Expected latest date of payment Payment date Delays in payment Remarks
1 Advance Payment 02-Jun-21 14-Jul-21 29-Jun-21 None OK
2 IPC No:1 28-Feb-22 11-Apr-22 07-Apr-22 None OK
33

Delayed
3 IPC No:2 03-May-22 14-Jun-22 15-Jun-22 1 day
Payment
4 IPC No:3 10-Jun-22 22-Jul-22 22-Jun-22 None OK
Consultant’s payments
S/No Type of payment Certified date Expected latest payment Payment date Delays in payment Remarks
date
1 Fee Note No.1 11-Jun-21 11-Jul-21 30-Jun-21 None OK
2 Fee Note No.2 06-Sep-21 06-Oct-21 18-Oct-21 12 days Delayed payment
3 Fee Note No.3 11-Oct-21 10-Nov-21 24-Dec-21 44 days Delayed payment
4 Fee Note No.4 24-Feb-22 26-Mar-22 11-Apr-22 16 days Delayed payment
5 Fee Note No.5 20-May-22 19-Jun-22 05-Jun-22 None OK
6 Fee Note No.6 15-Jun-22 15-Jul-22 23 June 2022 None OK
(c) Review of Contract Supervision and

Monitoring Arrangements
(i) Percentage of quality progress reports
The services contract required the supervision
consultant to prepare monthly progress and
quarterly progress reports. By the time of the
audit, at least eleven (11) monthly progress
reports and three (3) quarterly progress reports
were expected. OK
N/A OK
All the expected progress reports were found on
file and the quality was satisfactory as they
included information such as: contract data,
scope of works, contractual issues, personnel
and equipment mobilization, works and time
progress, financial matters, quality control,
meetings/reporting, Gender/HIV/AIDS,
Occupational Health and Safety, and challenges
and recommendations.
N/A OK OK
34

(ii) Presence of minutes of site meetings
It is a good project management practice to
hold regular site meetings to discuss issues
pertaining to project execution and progress at
least on a monthly basis. Eleven (11) site
meeting minutes were found on file.
(iii) Percentage of approved supervising
personnel on site
The key personnel required on the project was
available. According to the consultancy contract,
the consultant was supposed to have eleven (11)
staff of which five (5) were full-time on site and N/A OK OK
the rest part-time. The full-time staff included:
Soil/Materials Engineer, Clerk of Works, Land
Surveyor, Laboratory Technician, and Health and
Safety Officer. The personel were available on site
as shown in the table below;
S/No position Requirement Available Deficit Remarks
1 Resident Engineer 1 Eng. Owora Sam - OK
2 Materials Engineer 1 Eng. Lwanga Apollo - OK
3 Measurement Engineer 1 Ms Binyaga Tatian - OK
4 Hydrologist Drainage Engineer 1 Eng. Dr. Alex Katukiza - OK
5 Environmental Specialist 1 Mr. Murwanyi Peter Happy - OK
6 Electrical Engineer 1 Eng. Semaganda Mathias - OK
7 Social Development Specialist 1 Ms Kavuma N Esther - OK
8 Senior Land Surveyor 1 Dr. Ssengendo Ronald - OK
9 Clerk of Works Eng. Nuwenyesiga Dean - OK
10 Surveyor Assistant 1 Mr. Kakuru Simon - OK
11 Environmental Officer 1 Mr. Muhimbura Brian - OK
12 Laboratory Technician 1 Mr. Ndugga Munir - OK
13 Sociologist 1 Mr Buwemba Alex - OK
35

(iv) Percentage of Approved equipment on site
At the time of the audit, works were progressing well
and the progress report for May 2022 showed that the N/A OK OK
Contractor was adequately mobilized. The equipment
status was as shown in the table below:
S/No Description Equipment as per the Equipment (As per May Equipment (Observed on
Contract Progress Report) Site)
1. Bulldozer 1 1 0
2. Wheel loader 1 1 0
3. Excavator 1 1 1
4. Motor grader 1 1 1
5. Dump trucks 4 2 3
6. Concrete mixer 1 1 1
7. Concrete vibrators 1 1 1
8. Plate compactor 2 2 0
9. Vibro Roller 2 1 1
10. Pedestrian roller 2 2 1
11. Mobile laboratory 1 Not reported 1
12. Bloom truck 1 1 0
13. Water bowser 2 1 1
14. Generator 1 1 0
15. Pickup 3 4 1
(d) Other Findings related to project management
1. Insurances and Policies
The municipal council did not provide the documentation related to some of the insurance policies as shown in the table below. As such, the Auditor
could not ascertain the status/validity of such policies.
Description of
S/ Serial No. of policy/
insurance policy/NEMA Date of issue Issuer Expiry date Remarks
No license/Bank guarantee
license
1 Contractor’s All Risks Not provided Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
2 Motor Commercial 201/080/1/001809/2020/10 31st March 2022 CIC General Insurance (U) Ltd 17th December Valid
36

2022
3 Plant and Machinery Not provided Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
201/110/1/003545/2022/08 26th August CIC General Insurance (U) Ltd 24 August 2023
th
4 Worker’s Compensation Valid
2022
Management Response
We acknowledge the findings of the auditors but note these documents were available though we could have missed handing them to the auditors. A
copy of the contractors all risk, plant and machinery and workers compensation availed for your further reference.
Auditor’s Remark
The contractor’s all risks and plant and machinery policies were not availed for verification.
2. Securities and Guarantees
The auditor noticed that the professional indemnity was not availed.
S/No Description Amount Date of issue Expiry date Issuing Bank Remarks
1. Advance payment guarantee 2,688,075,854 7th October 2021 31st October 2022 Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd GCC 60 & SCC
60.1
2. Performance security 1,075,230,342 23rd April 2021 31st July 2022 Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd GCC 61 & SCC
61.1
3. ES Performance Security 268,807,585 22nd April 2021 31st August 2023 Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd GCC 61 & SCC
61.1
4. Professional indemnity - - - - Not available
Management Response
We acknowledge the findings of the auditors but note these documents were available though we could have missed handing them to the auditors. Copy
of professional indemnity is attached for verification.
Auditor’s Remark
No evidence was of professional indemnity was availed.
37
Assessment of Effectiveness
The score on effectiveness was 29.81 out of 35 as detailed below.

(a) Assessment of the quality of works under The Accounting Officer
implementation should ensure that all
(i) Percentage of material test results on file It poses a risk of use materials used for
Review of the project management file revealed that nine (09) out of Poor project of materials that do construction are tested or
the expected ten (10) material test results were on file representing management not conform to the certified by the
90% availability as shown in the table below; specifications. responsible authorities to
ensure conformance to
quality requirements.
S/No Material/Layer/Product Tests Expected Tests results on file
1 Subgrade Layer FDT
Compaction Present
Soaked CBR Present
MDD Present
Atterberg Present
DCP(min. 3) Present
Certified B/A Present
2 Concrete works Culvert test Absent
Sand tests Present
Aggregate Tests Present
Concrete Compressive cube (Load Present
crushing)
(ii) Percentage conformance of site works to design drawings
and physical specifications
Design drawings and specifications were available. Drainage activities
and mainly culverts installation were the only major activities carried out N/A OK OK
by the Contractor by audit time. All the three items checked conformed
to the designs and specifications representing 100% conformance as
indicated in the table below:
38
No. Items Drawings/ Specifications Field checks/measurements Conformity

1 600mm concrete culverts 600mm 600mm OK
2 900mm concrete culverts 900mm 900mm OK
3 Road Length 2.055km 2.045 OK
(iii) Percentage conformance of audit test results to
Specifications
The audit team carried out nondestructive in situ tests on some N/A OK OK
components of the project. All the items tested fulfilled the specification
requirements thus translating into 100% conformance to specifications.
In-situ Equipment Structure/ Auditor’s Specification Comment Remarks
tests /tools Layer tested results (N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
900mm concrete culvert 31.20 30 Passed
Manhole cover point 1 30.10 30 Passed
Manhole casing 1 25.60 25 Passed
casing
Concrete Schmidt Manhole cover point 2 30.20 30 Passed
compressive hammer Manhole cover point 3 30.00 30 Passed
strength Manhole cover point 4 29.80 30 Passed
Manhole casing point 9 27.50 25 Passed
39

Manhole casing point 5 27.30 25 Passed
Manhole casing 32.00 30 Passed
(i) Physical inspection to ascertain any defects
 The Audit team undertook a field inspection of the construction works
on 28th June 2022 in the presence of the Project Manager, consultant’s
representative and the contractor’s Clerk of Works. At the time of the N/A OK OK
audit, the major activity that was in advanced stage was drainage works
along Kampala Road. The inspection revealed no visible defects on the
drainage structures.
(b) Assessment of the utilization of the infrastructure
(i) Observed functionality and usage
N/A N/A N/A
The works were still under and the progress was still too low at
audit team so this parameter was not applicable.
(c) Assessment of the fulfilment of environmental and social
impact requirements, health and safety
(i) Presence of an ESIA/ESMF or environmental screening
N/A OK OK
report
The contractor prepared and submitted an ESMP for review and
approval which was appropriately done by the Project Manager.
(ii) Evidence of fulfilment of environmental protection
The Accounting Officer
measures
should ensure that all the
The approvals secured are provided in the table below:
required approvals are
However, the following were observed; -
obtained to ensure
 Busambaga borrow pit was not fenced and no dust arrester was
compliance to the
in place. environmental protection
 Water was sprinkled at least two times a day to suppress the measures.
40

dust nuisance.
S/No Required Approval Cert. No:/License No: Issue date Expiry date Validity/Remarks
1 Dump site by EMC Not provided Unknown Unknown Status unknown
2 Borrow pits by EMC Not provided Unknown Unknown Status unknown
3 Campsite by NEMA OSH:004555/A 18th October 17th October 2024 Valid
2021
4 Quarry by NEMA NEMA/EIA/7858 21st October Valid
2015
5 Hazardous waste handler TR/051/2021 2nd July 2021 2nd July 2023 Valid (Mast Logistics Service Provider)
6 Water Abstraction WAK01/SP-547/2021/NN 12th October 11th October 2022 Valid
2021
Management Response
We acknowledge the findings of the auditors but note, these documents were available though we could have missed handing them to the auditors.
Approvals for the above availed Borrow pits by MCC Dump site.
Auditor’s Remark
There was no verifiable information in respect of borrow pits approval by Entebbe Municipal Council (EMC) and the provided evidence was instead
approval for stockpile yard and not dump site.
(ii) Evidence of fulfilment of social protection
Poor project Risk of social The Accounting Officer
measures
management deprivation should always ensure
There was no information availed to the Audit team on the engagement
that social protection
of the community regarding how the project was likely to affect them
measures are
socially and how the project management intends to mitigate the
undertaken during
negative aspects. Whereas, the Project Manager informed the Audit
project execution.
Team that the community was being engaged through public address
sensitization, there was no evidence to back up those assertions.
The following were also observed: -

 The borrow pit at Busambaga lacked a place of convenience for
the workers implying that they were encroaching on community
41

facilities.
 There was no evidence that the contractor had facilitated
formation of a workers’ council;
 There were no baseline surveys undertaken for buildings along
the project alignment before commencement of works as it is
useful during resolution of grievances of any Project Affected
Person (PAP);
Busambaga borrow pit
42

Management Response
We acknowledge the finding of the auditors. There is a grievance committee for the contractor and one for the community and we shall ensure we
improve in these areas highlighted.
Auditor’s Remark
No verifiable evidence concerning the grievance committees have been provided.
(i) Evidence of fulfillment of OSH measures
During field inspection, it was observed that appropriate and necessary
safety measures such as works warning signs, danger warning tapes N/A OK OK
and barricades were in place as demonstrated in some of the photos
below:
Safety on measures being undertaken on site
43
44
3.2 Project Title: Upgrading of Busambaga Road to bitumen standard phase II

3.2.1 Project details
The project details are presented in the table below:
Table 3.2-1: Project details
Project Name Upgrading of Busambaga Road to Bitumen Standard
Procurement Reference No: Not Availed
Client Entebbe City Council

Implementation mode Force Account
Funding URF
Project Manager City Engineer
Acceptance of offer N/A
Contact Start date 05th May 2021
Intended completion date 30th June 2021
Actual completion 14th August 2021

Planned cost UGX 912,641,244
Defects Liability Period N/A
Actual implementation cost UGX 774,668,000 (VAT Inclusive)
3.2.2 Scope of works

The scope of the works included:
 Road surveying;
 Road opening and widening;
 Road formation;
 Graveling;
 Stabilization;
 Drainage works;
 Priming;
 Double surface dressing.
3.2.3 Status of the project at the time of audit

At the time of audit, construction works were complete as shown in the pictures
below;
Status of Busambaga Road at the time of the audit
45
3.2.4 Assessment of Economy

The score on economy was 22.05 out of 30 as detailed below:
(a) Assessment of the price difference between similar quality and quantity of
works
(i) Comparison of unit project item costs as per Engineers estimates
A comparison of the engineer’s estimates of five (05) selected items for the URF
funded force on account projects was made against the lowest among the
Table 3.2-2: Comparison of Engineer’s estimates across

Cities/Municipalities
Bill item Unit Municipality' Lowest Max. Project Percentage
s Eng. est. rate score score of Eng. est.
rate (F) across (1*Fm/ (1*Fm/ rate to
(UGX) Municipa Fm) F) lowest rate
lities in (1+(F-
the Fm)/Fm)%
cluster
(Fm) UGX
600mm m 185,000 150,000 1.00 0.81 1.23
diameter
concrete
culverts
Chippings m3 150,000 150,000 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fuel ltr 4,000 3,600 1.00 0.90 1.11
Gravel m3 34,000 34,000 1.00 1.00 1.00
Cement bag Not availed 29,100 1.00 0 Not availed
Total score 3.71
The score was 3.71 out of 5. The Engineer’s estimate for 600mm diameter concrete
culverts and fuel were higher than the lowest in the cluster while the rate for cement
was not availed to the audit team.
Management Response
We acknowledge the findings of the auditors. The Engineer’s rates are derived from
the market survey done every financial year.
Auditor’s Remarks
The market survey report was not availed for verification.
(ii) Comparison of unit project item costs as per supplier’s contract

A comparison of the material suppliers’ rates of five (05) selected items for the URF
funded force on account projects in Entebbe Municpal Council was made against the
lowest among the Municipalities and the results of the assessment are presented in
the table below:
46
Table 3.2- 3: Comparison of suppliers’ rates across Cities/Municipalities

Bill item Unit Municipality’s Lowest rate Max. Project Proportion of
Supplier’s across score score the
rate (F) Municipalities (2*Fm/ (2*Fm/ Municipality's
(UGX) in the cluster Fm) F) supplier’s
(Fm) UGX rate to
lowest rate
(1+(F-
Fm)/Fm)%
600mm
diameter
m 215,000 170,000 2.00 1.58 1.26
concrete
culverts
Chippings m3 150,000 150,000 2.00 2.00 1.00
Fuel ltr 4,000 3,600 2.00 1.80 1.11
Gravel m3 34,000 34,000 2.00 2.00 1.00
Cement bag 45,000 29,100 2.00 1.29 1.55
The score was 8.67 out of 10. The supplier’s rate for 600mm diameter concrete
culverts, fuel and cement were higher than the lowest in the cluster.
Management Response
We acknowledge the findings of the auditors however It should be noted that this
were suppliers’ rates of which the Municipality had no control over; however these
were the lowest from the Best Evaluated Bidder and were with in the market range
of the area.
Auditor’s Remarks
(iii) Comparison of unit cost per square meter of works

A comparison of the project unit cost per square meter was made against the lowest
among the Municipalities/Cities in the cluster. The results of the assessment are
presented in table below:
Table 3.2-4: Comparison of project unit costs across CITIES/Municipalities
Municipality's cost Lowest cost per Max. Project Proportion of the
per square meter square meter of score score Municipality's cost
of the infrastructure in the (15*Fm/ (15*Fm/F) per square meter to
infrastructure (F) cluster (Fm) UGX Fm) the lowest in the
UGX cluster (1+(F-
Fm)/Fm)
112,650 72,652 15.00 9.67 1.55
The score was 9.67 out of 15.00. The project’s unit cost per square meter was 1.55
times the lowest in the cluster.
47
2.2.3 Assessment of Efficiency

The score on efficiency was 12.00 out of 35.00 as detailed below:
Finding Cause Implication Recommendations

(a) Assessment of progress of works against time
(i) Assessment of physical progress lag basing Lack of adequate
The Project Manager should
on initial work Programme and reliable project always ensure that relevant
A progress report without a date showed the start date as information denies project documentation is prepared
5th May 2021 and expected completion as 30th June 2021. Poor documentation
stakeholders an and secured for proper project
However, final report was dated 14th August 2021 but it did
opportunity to make management and utilization by
not mention when the project was completed so the audit
informed decisions various stakeholders
team could not assess physical progress lag bassed on initial
work program.
Management Response
We acknowledge the findings of the Auditors and on future projects quality reports will be prepared and filed on project management file.
Auditor’s Remarks
To be followed up.
(ii)Assessment of physical progress lag basing on Lack of adequate The Project Manager should
revised work programme and reliable project always ensure that relevant
There were no time extension approvals on file and as such information denies project documentation is prepared
Poor documentation
audit could not determine whether the works were stakeholders an and secured for proper project
completed on time. Therefore, physical progress lag bassed opportunity to make management and utilization by
on revisd work program could not be assessed. informed decisions various stakeholders
Management Response
We acknowledge the finding of the auditors and on future projects quality reports will be prepared and filled on project management file.
48

Auditor’s Remarks
To be followed up.
(b) Assessment of the existence and
effectiveness of internal controls for certification and
payment of executed works
(i) Presence of detailed payment supporting
documents
N/A OK OK
Detailed payment supporting documents are necessary to
facilitate accountability of resources utilized to deliver a
project. Payment supporting documents like like Goods
received notes for gravel and aggregates, fuel receipts and
field attendance were attached to the payments.
Audit review of the available payment documents revealed
The Municipality
that for some items, their payment vouchers were not The Accounting Officer should
Poor document cannot give full
availed so audit could not determine whether the payments improve on document
management. accountability for the
were consistent with certififed amounts and payment for management.
funds.
supplies of gravel was not consistent with certified
amounts as shown in the table below:
49

Payments made to the suppliers
S/No Type of payment Certified amount Paid amount Payment above certified amount Remarks
(UGX) (UGX)
1 Supply of fuel 19,752,000 19,752,000 None
2 Labour charges 25,170,000 25,170,000 None
4 Supply of gravel 82,377,000 82,620,000 243,000
5 Hire of equipment 22,881,540 22,881,540 None
6 Supply of bitumen 102,250,000 102,000,000 None
7 Supply of chippings 69,000,000 69,000,000 None
8 Labour charges 41,968,000 41,968,000 None
9 Supply of gravel 30,600,000 30,600,000 None
10 Supply of stone 13,440,000 13,440,000 None
dust
11 Supply of fire wood 15,000,000 15,000,000 None
13 Hire of equipment 32,710,104 Not availed Could not be determined Payment voucher
missing
14 Supply of fuel 14,000,000 Not availed Could not be determined Payment voucher
missing
15 Supply of hand 4,000,000 Not availed Could not be determined Payment voucher
tools missing
(i) Percentage of overpayments (as a result of
The audit team carried out physical measurements of the
quantities of executed works that were compared with the N/A OK OK
quantities that were certified for payment. An overpayment
of UGX 3,982,989.53 was noted which was equivalent to
0.5% of the final project amount as shown in table below:
50
Assessment of % of overpayment (as a result of variance between audit values and certified works) to the certified value of
the works (10 Marks)
Item checked Unit Planned Rate Payment Audit Diff. Amount Remarks
quantity (UGX) quantity quantity between over paid
audit &
paid
quantities
Gravel M3 2,430.00 33,900 2,430 2,414.26 15.74 533,586
Bitumen Kg 22,200.00 4,594.60 22,200 22,014.08 185.92 854,228.03
Chippings (14/20) Kg 260,000.00 150.00 240,000 235,826.45 4,173.55 626,032.50
Chippings (10/12) Kg 220,000.00 150.00 220,000 206,872.38 13,127.62 1,969,143.00
Total Overpayment: 3,982,989.53
Total Payment (Final Project Amount): 774,668,000.00
% Overpayment: 0.5
Management Response
We acknowledge the observations of the auditors. By the nature of surfacing works, normally extra materials are procured to take into account of
any eventualities such as wastes due to bitumen that remain both in the drums and the distributor besides chippings that remain at stockpile yard.
The discrepancy could have come from admeasurements for actual executed works. On future projects extra precaution shall be taken to further
minimize on the errors.
Auditor’s Remarks
To be followed up.
(ii) Timeliness in Payments Delayed payments negatively
Clause 49 (3) of PPDA regulations of 2014 requires affect the cash flows which may
payments to contractor/supplier to be made within negatively impact on project The Accounting Officer should
30 days of receipt of request for payment. Review of delivery. ensure that payment are made
the project payment documents indicated that some
timely as per the terms in the
payments were delayed by days ranging from 4 to
Could lead to interest claims signed contracts.
133 days while for some, the payment vouchers were
not availed and so audit could not assess their due to delayed payments
timeliness in payment as shown in the table below:
51

S/No Type of Certified date Expected latest Payment date Delay in payment Remarks
payment (UGX) payment date (UGX)
1 Supply of fuel 25th Nov 2019 25th Dec 2019 9th Dec 2019 OK
2 Labour charges 21st Aug 2020 20th Sept 2020 2nd Sept. 2020 OK
3 Supply of fuel 21st Aug 2020 20th Sept 2020 24th Sept 2020 4 days
4 Supply of gravel 21st Aug 2020 20th Sept 2020 8th Oct 2020 18 days
5 Hire of equipment 21st Aug 2020 20th Sept 2020 3rd Nov 2020 44 days
6 Supply of bitumen 11th Dec 2020 10th Jan 2021 3rd May 2021 113 days
7 Supply of 20th April 2021 20th May 2021 3rd May 2021 OK
8 Labour charges 11th May 2021 10th June 2021 4th June 2021 OK
9 Supply of gravel 11th May 2021 10th June 2021 23rd June 2021 13 days
10 Supply of stone 11th May 2021 10th June 2021 23rd June 2021 13 days
11 Supply of fire 11th May 2021 10th June 2021 23rd June 2021 13 days
12 Supply of fuel 11th May 2021 10th June 2021 23rd June 2021 13 days
13 Hire of equipment 11th May 2021 10th June 2021 Not availed Could not be determined Payment voucher
14 Supply of hand 11th May 2021 10th June 2021 Not availed Could not be determined Payment voucher
tools missing
Management Response
We acknowledge the finding of the auditors. This was caused by non-availability of funds. Auditors recommendation noted and future projects
timely payments shall be made to contractors.
Auditor’s Remark
The management response is noted and will be followed up in future audits.
(c) Review of Contract Supervision and
Monitoring Arrangements The Accounting officer
(i) Percentage of quality progress reports should put measures to
Lack of information/ data
prepared ensure that quality
which limits stakeholders
Poor project management progress reports
Regulation 6(5) (b) of the PPDA (force account) from making informed
addressing all key project
regulations requires the works manager to prepare decisions.
aspects are always
monthly progress reports for the works. The project was prepared for all projects.
delivered over a period of about four (4) months implying
52

that at least four (4) monthly progress reports were be
expected.
However, only two (2) progress reports not dated and of
insufficient quality were available. The reports had mostly
pictures and lacked information on quality control, health,
safety and social-environmental issues.
Management Response
We acknowledge the findings of the auditors. We have standardized the reporting tool to ensure better reports.
Auditor’s Remark
To be followed up.
It is a good project management pr.actice to hold regular
site meetings at least on a monthly basis to discuss issues
pertaining to execution and progress of the project.
N/A OK OK
Review of the project management file showed that two
(02) site meeting minutes dated 20th May 2020 and 24th
November 2020 were on file.
personnel on site
Clause 5 and 6 of PPDA regulations of 2014 (force
account mechanisms) of 2014, mandates the Accounting N/A OK OK
Officer to appoint a Works Supervisor and a Works
Manager respectively to supervise the works. These were
appointed vide letters dated 13th July 2020.
(iv)Percentage of approved equipment on site
At the time of the audit, the works had been completed.
Review of documents showed that several equipmwnt had N/A OK OK
been hired and that the were adeqauate to accomplish
the project. The pictorial progress report availed also had
53

pictures of the equipment on site doing the work.
54
3.2.4 Assessment of Effectiveness

The score on effectiveness was 18.00 out of 35.00 as detailed below:

(a) Assessment of the quality of works under
implementation
(i) Percentage of material test results on file
The Municipality should ensure
Review of the project management records showed It poses a risk of use of
that materials to be used in the
that some material testing was carried out on some materials that do not
Poor project management permanent works are tested to
project construction materials. It was established that conform to the
avoid using materials that do
out of the seven (07) expected tests results, only one specifications.
not meet specification.
(01) material test results were available translating into
14.29% material test results available as shown in the
table below.
S/No Material/Layer/Product to be tested Remarks
1 Gravel Not availed
2 Stabilized base Availed
3 Aggregates tests Not availed
4 Sand tests Not availed
5 Culverts Not availed
6 Primer Not availed
7 Bitumen Not availed
Management Response
We acknowledge the findings of the auditors. For future projects material testing and manufacturers certification shall be captured at all levels.
Auditor’s Remark
To befollowed up.
(ii) Percentage conformance of site works to design The Accounting Officer should
drawings and physical specifications Risk of executing
always ensure that design
Design drawings and physical specifications were not substandard works owing
drawings and specifications are
availed so the audit team could not determine conformance Poor project management to lack of guiding design
available so that they are
of executed works to design drawings and physical drawings and physical
followed in execution of the
specifications. specifications
works.
55
Management Response
We acknowledge the findings of the auditors. The drawings were taken by the Hon. Minister for Economic Development at one of his monitoring
exercise. We have managed to get a copy of the design drawings and this has been attached for your verification.
Auditor’s Remark
The management response is noted but no verifiable evidence concerning design drawings have been provided.
specifications
The audit team carried out tests on gravel utilized on the
N/A OK OK
project. All material properties fulfilled the specification
requirements thus translating into 100% conformance to
specifications.
Material Sample Test done Auditor Specification Comment Remarks
(S/N) resultsresults (N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
Gravel GOA/LC/ CBR (%) 41.00 30% Minimum Passed
M&B/G02 Liquid limit 36.70 45 Maximum Passed
Plasticity Index 14.60 16 Maximum Passed
Shrinkage 165.90 120 - 400 Passed
product
Linear Shrinkage 7.90 9 Maximum Passed
Grading modulus 2.35 1.2 Minimum Passed
(iv) Physical inspection to ascertain presence of
defects from visual observations
The audit team inspected works on 15th June, 2022 in the The Accounting Officer should
Risk of premature failure
presence of the Engineering staff from Entebbe Municipal ensure that the observed
of the road
Council Engineer’s Office. It was observed that the defects are rectified.
infrastructure had some minor defects as shown in the
table below:
56
Edge break failure at Ch. 0+710 Stripping of surface dressing at Ch. 0+675
Management Response
We acknowledge the findings of the auditors. Wearing of edges and stripping of surface dressing is sometimes caused by silt from unpaved connecting
accesses that silt the road and facilitate growth of vegetation. In the process of removal sections are damaged. We have improved by spraying instead
of weeding/uprooting.
Auditor’s Remark
The management response is noted but there are no connecting roads at these chainages implyinh that there could have been a different cause of the
observed defects.
(b) Assessment of the utilization of the
The Accounting Officer should
infrastructure Reduced funstionality of
ensure that the observed
(i) Observed functionality and usage the road
defects are rectified.
At the time of audit, the works had been completed and
57

the infrastructure was open to traffic with some minor
defects.
Management Response
We acknowledge the findings of the auditors. We have improved our maintenance to ensure the functionality is improved.
Auditor’s Remark
(c) Assessment of the fulfilment of environmental
and social impact requirements, health and safety
(i) Presence of an ESIA/ESMF or environmental
screening report
At the time of audit, works had been completed. Review of N/A OK OK
the project management file indicated that the
Environmental Officer prepared an ESMP which was
approved by the Accounting Officer on 30th September
2019.
(ii) Evidence of fulfilment of environmental The Accounting Officer should
protection measures always ensure that
Risk of environmental
There was no record showing that environmental Poor project management environmental protection
deprivation
protection measures were implemented. measures are undertaken during
project execution.
(iii) Evidence of fulfilment of social protection The Accounting Officer should
measures always ensure that social
There was no record showing that social protection Poor project management Risk of social deprivation protection measures are
measures were implemented. undertaken during project
execution.
(iv) Evidence of fulfilment of OSH measures The Accounting Officer should
There was no record showing that OSH measures were Risk of injury to the always ensure that OSH
Poor project management
implemented. workers measures are undertaken during
project execution.
58
Value for Money Audit/assessment of the Municipalities participating in the Uganda Support to Municipal
Infrastructure Development - Additional Funding (USMID-AF) program
3.3 Project Title: Stone pitching along Busambaga Road Phase 2

The project details are presented in the table below:
Table 3.3-1: Project Details

Project Name Construction road side drains along
Busambaga Road
Procurement Reference Number Ent775/Wrks/2020-21/00001
Funding URF
Contractor Da Track Ltd
Contract criteria Ad-measurements
Contract start date 21st December 2020
Original contract period 5 months
Intended completion date 30th May 2021
Actual completion date 30th May 2021
DLP period 6 months
Contract Sum UGX: 289,888,830 (VAT Inclusive)
Actual implementation cost UGX: 289,127,639.85 (VAT Inclusive)

The scope of the works included:-
 Trimming of excavation for the open drains;
 Stone pitching of open drains;
 Culvert installation.
3.3.3 Status of works at the time of audit

At the time of audit, the construction of the drainage channel had been completed
Status of the drainage channel along Busambaga road at the time of audit
59

This was a unique project and could not be compared with the other selected
projects since it had different items from the selected ones. Economy assessment
was therefore not done and the scores obtained from efficiency and effectiveness
were converted to represent the score out of 100.
60

The score on efficiency was 29.00 out of 35.00 as detailed below:

(i) Assessment of physical progress lag basing on
initial work programme
A commencement order was issued on 21st December
2020 and works were planned to be executed over a
N/A OK OK
duration of 5 months with an intended completion date of
30th May 2021. The completion report showed that the
works were completed and handed over by the contractor
on 30th May 2021 implying that there was no physical
progress lag.
(ii) Assessment of physical progress lag basing on
revised work Programme N/A OK OK
Works were completed within the initial contract period.
(b) Assessment of the existence and
effectiveness of internal controls for
certification and payment of executed works
(i) Presence of detailed payment supporting
documentation
Clause 17(4) of the PPDA (contracts) regulations of 2014 N/A OK OK
requires that the actual work done is measured during the
performance of a contract and is finally reconciled on
effecting payments. The Auditor observed that detailed
payment supporting documents in form of measurement
sheets were prepared and attached to the certificates.
(i) Payment above certified amounts
The payments made to the contractor were consistent with N/A OK OK
the amounts certified as shown in the table below;
61
S/No. Type of payment Certified amount (UGX) Paid amount (UGX) Payment above(UGX) Remarks
1 IPC No:1 148,795,373 148,795,373 None OK
2 IPC No:2 126,564,284 126,564,284 None OK
(ii) Percentage of overpayments (as a result of

The audit team carried out physical measurements of the
quantities of executed works that were compared with the
quantities that were certified for payment. The Auditor N/A OK OK
observed that the variance between the certified quantity
and physical measured quantity was quite small which
could be accounted for by allowable errors of
measurement thus representing 0% overpayment as
shown in table below:
works (10 Marks)
Item checked Unit Planned Rate Payment Audit Diff. between Amount Remarks
quantity (UGX) quantity quantity audit & paid over paid
quantities
Lined stone M2 3,570 48,000 3,360 3,359 1 0
pitching
Total Payment (Final Contract Amount): 289,127,639.85
% Overpayment: 0.0
62

(iii) Timeliness in Payments Delayed payments The Accounting Officer should Delayed payments negatively
GCC 43.1 stated that payment to the contractor should be negatively affect the ensure that payment are made affect the cash flows which
effected within thirty (30) days after receipt of a certified cash flows which may timely as per the terms in the may negatively impact on
invoice from the Project Manager. negatively impact on project delivery.
signed contracts.
project delivery.
Review of the payment certificates and vouchers indicated Could lead to interest claims
that payment for IPC No.2 was made timely but payment Could lead to interest due to delayed payments
for IPC No.1 was delayed by 32 days. claims due to delayed
payments
S/No. Type of payment Certified Expected latest payment date Payment Delays in Remarks
date date payments
1 IPC No: 1 25th Feb 2021 27th March 2021 28th April 2021 32days Delayed by 32days
2 IPC No: 2 7th June 2021 7th July 2021 23rd June 2021 - OK
Management Response
We acknowledge the findings of the auditors. The delay for payment of IPC: 1 was because of lack of funds.
Auditor’s Remark
(c) Review of Contract Supervision and Poor project Lack of information/ data The Accounting officer should
Monitoring Arrangements management which limits stakeholders from put measures to ensure that
(i) Percentage of quality progress reports making informed decisions. quality progress reports
PPDA regulations of 2014, clause 53(3) (g) requires the addressing all key project
contract manager to prepare monthly progress reports. aspects are always prepared
The project was executed over a period of 160 days for all projects.
implying that at least four (4) monthly progress reports
were expected.
Reports for January 2021, March 2021 and May 2021 were
available but were of poor quality due to lack of key
information such as: level of contractor’s equipment
63

mobilization, quality control, health, safety and social-
environmental issues.
Management Responses
We acknowledge the findings of the auditors. Our reports lacked some key project information, we have since standardized the report form.
Auditor’s Remark
To be followed up.
It is a good project management practice to hold regular
site meetings at least on a monthly basis to discuss issues
pertaining to project execution and progress.
N/A OK OK
Review of the project documents indicated that only one
(1) site meeting for the month of May 2021 was held as
evidenced by presence of site meeting records dated 18th
May 2021.
personnel on site
Clause 52 of PPDA regulations of 2014 requires the
Accounting Officer to appoint a Contract Manager to
N/A OK OK
manage the contract. Upon reviewing the project
management records, the Auditor observed that a Contract
Manager was appointed vide letter dated 22nd December
2020.
(iv) Percentage of approved equipment on site The Accounting officer should
At the time of audit, the project had been completed. Lack of information/ data which put measures to ensure that
Review of the project management records showed that limits stakeholders from quality progress reports
Poor project
there was no information that could be utilized to establish making informed decisions. addressing all key project
management
the contractor’s level of equipment mobilization during aspects like equipment
construction. mobilization are always
prepared for all projects.
64

Management Response
We acknowledge the findings of the auditors however the major works for the project were hand tools like hoes and spades for excavation works.
Auditor’s Remark
No evidence was availed of the tools/equipment used during construction.
(e) Review of Contract Supervision and Monitoring
Arrangements during project closure Defects existing at substantial The Accounting Officer should
(i) Presence of detailed certificate of completion completion might not be always ascertain that a
Substantial completion certificate stating completion date Poor project attended to timely resulting substantial completion
as 30th May 2021 was issued; however, no snag list was management into major defects thereby certificate duly accompanied
attached to it. undermining the functionality by snag list is prepared at
of the infrastructure every project completion.
Management Response
We acknowledge the findings of the auditors. Auditors recommendation noted, completion certificates will always be issued indicating the status of
defects at substantial completion.
Auditor’s Remark
To be followed up.
(i) Presence of As-built drawings and Lack of as-built drawings may
maintenance manuals Poor project ensure that As-built drawings
hinder economic and effective
There was no conditions of contract specifying the formulation are always prepared and duly
future maintenance
requirements of as-built drawings. approved at every project
interventions.
completion.
Management Response
We acknowledge the findings of the auditors. Auditors recommendation noted, As-built drawings will always be prepared and duly approved on future
projects.
Auditor’s Remark
To be followed up.
(ii) Percentage of DLP progress/monitoring reports The Accounting Officer should
There may be a missed
There were no defects liability monitoring/inspection Poor project ensure that DLP inspections
opportunity of identifying
reports on file. management at project are conducted, snag lists
developing defects and
closure stage updated, and reports made on
rectifying them.
its future projects.
Management Response
65

We acknowledge the findings of the auditors. The DLP monitoring report was there and a copy attached for your verification.
Auditor’s Remark
The provided evidence is a snag list at substantial completion but DLP progress/monitoring reports are prepared thorough out the defects liability period
to inform possible development of defects during the DLP.
(ii) Presence of defects liability certificate
A defects liability certificate dated 3rd December 2021
stating end of defects liability period as 30th November N/A OK OK
2021 was duly issued.
66

The score on effectiveness was 19.44 out of 35.00 as detailed below:
(a) Assessment of the quality of works under implementation The Accounting Officer should
It poses a risk of use of ensure that materials to be
(i) Percentage of material test results on file
Poor project materials that do not used in the permanent works
Review of the project management file showed that three (03) of the
management conform to the are tested to avoid using
expected five (05) tests were present representing 60.00% availability
specifications. materials that do not meet
as indicated in the table below:
specification.
S/No Tests Expected Tests results on file
1 Sand tests Absent
Tests on mortar Absent
Culvert tests (manufacturer's certificate) Present
Cement (manufacturer's certificate) Present
Reinforcements (manufacturer's certificate) Present
(ii) Percentage conformance of site works to design drawings

and physical specifications The Accounting Officer should
There were no design drawings and physical specifications against Risk of executing always ensure that design
which the audit team could establish the conformance of executed substandard works drawings and specifications are
Poor project
works to design drawings and physical specifications. owing to lack of guiding
management available so that they are
design drawings and
physical specifications followed in execution of the
works.
Management Response
We acknowledge the findings of the auditors but wish to note that the drawings were taken by Hon Minister for Economic monitoring , we have
however managed to retrieve a copy is attached for your verification.
67

Auditor’s Remark
The management response is noted but no verifiable evidence of a design drawings copy as stated above were provided.
specifications N/A OK OK
Audit tests were not carried out.
(iv) Physical inspection to ascertain presence of defects
The audit team inspected the project works on 15th June 2022 in the Risk of premature
ensure that the observed
presence of the Engineering Staff from Entebbe Municipal Council. failure of the road
defects are rectified.
Some minor defects were observed as indicated below:
Failure at Ch. 0+855 LHS Damaged works at 0+865
Management Response
We acknowledge the findings of the auditors. Rectification of defects Planned for this financial year.
68

Auditor’s Remark
To be followed up.
(b) Assessment of the utilization of the infrastructure
(i) Observed functionality and usage The Accounting Officer should
Reduced funstionality of
At the time of audit (15th June, 2022), the works had been completed ensure that the observed
the road
and the drainage channel was operational but with some defects defects are rectified.
affecting its functionality as shown above.
(c) Assessment of the fulfilment of environmental and social
impact requirements, health and safety
screening report
N/A OK OK
At the time of audit, the works had been completed. Review of project
management records indicated that the Municipal Environmental
Officer prepared an ESMP which was approved by the Accounting
Officer on 30th Sept, 2020.
(ii) Evidence of fulfillment of environmental protection
measures
At the time of audit, the works had been completed. Review of project N/A OK OK
management records indicated that during construction,
environmental protection measures were undertaken and reported on
in a report dated 27th July, 2021 with a certificate accordingly issued.
(iii) Evidence of fulfillment of social protection measures
management records indicated that during construction, social N/A OK
protection measures were undertaken and reported on in a report OK
dated 27th July, 2021 with a certificate accordingly issued.
(iii) Evidence of fulfillment of OSH measures
management records indicated that during construction, OSH N/A OK OK
measures were undertaken and reported on in a report dated 27th
July, 2021 with a certificate accordingly issued.
69
3.4 Project Title: Chain Link fencing of Namate Playground

The project details are presented in the following table:

Project Name Chain Link fencing of Namate Playground
Procurement Reference Number Ente752/Wrks/2020-2021/00007
Client Entebbe City Council
Contractor Kuma Enterprise Limited
Street: Kyambogo
Town/City: Kampala
P.O Box 187
Tel: 0775240651/0772120922
Email: kumaenterprises@gmail.com
Funding DDEG
Contract Criteria Lump sum contract
Contract signature date 29th January 2021
Commencement date 19th Feb, 2021
Original contract duration 6 months
Intended completion date 18th August,2021
Actual completion date 30th April 2021
Defects Liability Period 6 months
Contract Sum UGX. 103,981,836 (VAT Inclusive)
Actual implementation cost UGX. 101,821,020 (VAT Inclusive)

 Survey works;
 Excavation of trenches;
 Supply of concrete poles;
 Erecting of concrete poles.
 Fixing of the galvanized fencing wire on the poles;
 Fixing of the chain link on the poles
 Fixing of the galvanized fencing wire on the poles;
 Environmental and social safeguards.
70
3.4.3 Status of chain link works at the time of audit

At the time of audit, installation of the chain link had been completed and functional.
Status of the chain link at Namate play ground at the time of Audit

71
Value for Money Audit/assessment of the Municipalities participating in the Uganda Support to Municipal Infrastructure Development - Additional Funding
(USMID-AF) program

The score on efficiency was 33.00 out of 35 as detailed below:

i) Assessment of physical progress lag basing on initial
work Programme
Special conditions of contract GCC 1.1(ee) stated that the start
date shall be 14 days after commencement letter. Document
review showed that the commencement letter was dated 5th
February 2021 implying that the start date was 19th February
2021. Special Conditions of contract GCC 17.1 satetd that the N/A OK OK
intended completion date for the whole of the works was six (06)
calendar months from the commencement date meaing that the
intended completion date was 18th August 2021.
Substantial completion certificate indicated that practical
completion date was 30th April 2021 implying that the project was
completed on time thus no physical progress lag.
(ii) Assessment of physical progress lag basing on revised
work Programme N/A OK OK
The project was completed within the initial project duration.
(b) Assessment of the existence and effectiveness of
internal controls for certification and payment of
executed works The Accounting
(i) Presence of detailed payment supporting Officer should
documentation ensure that all
Special Conditions of Contract GCC 2.3 indicated the contract as a Payments may be necessary
Poor project
lump sum contract. Clause 15(3) of the PPDA (contracts) made for documentation to
management.
regulations 2014 requires that the payments for a lump sum unexecuted works. show proof of works
contract are linked to clearly specified outputs or deliverables done is attached to
which include; deliveries of supplies, evidenced by the certificates being
appropriate delivery documentation, reports, drawings, bills of effecting payments.
quantities, activity schedule and any other outputs or deliverables
appropriate to the contract.
72
(USMID-AF) program

Audit review showed that these details were not attached to the
payments and neither were detailed measurement sheets availed
to confirm that the required works had been done and
ascertained.
Audit review of IPC No. 1 and its payment voucher revealed that
the payment was consistent with certified amount as shown in N/A OK OK
the table below:
S/No. Type of payment Certified amount (UGX) Paid amount (UGX) Payment above certified Remarks
1 IPC No:1 98,034,813 91,843,141 None OK
(iii) Percentage of overpayments (as a result of variance

between audit values and certified works) to the
certified value of the works
It was noted that much as the contract was lum sum, it was
considered as an admeasurement contract in payments.
Therefore, the audit team carried out physical measurements of
the quantities of executed works and compared with the N/A OK OK
quantities that were certified for payment.
It was observed that the variances between the certified

quantities and physical measured quantities were small and could
be accounted for by allowable errors of measurement thus
representing 0% overpayment as shown in table below;
Assessment of % of overpayment (as a result of variance between audit values and certified works) to the certified
value of the works (10 Marks)
Planne Paymen
Uni d Rate t Audit Diff. between audit Amount
Item checked Remarks
t quantit (UGX) quantit quantity & paid quantities over paid
y y
28,000.
Length of chain link M 570.00 570.00 571.30 1.30 0
00
Number of fence No. 330.00 55,000. 330.00 330.00 0.00 0.00
73
(USMID-AF) program

poles 00
Length of barbed 1,770.0 1,000.0
M 570.00 571.30 1.30 0
wire 0 0
101,821,020.
Total Payment (Final Contract Amount): 00
% Overpayment: 0.0
(iv) Timeliness in Payments
GCC 43.1 stated that payment to the contractor should be
effected within thirty (30) days after receipt of a certified invoice
from the Project Manager. N/A OK OK
Review of the payment documents indicated that payment for IPC

No. 1 was timely effected as indicated in table below:
S/No Type of payment Certified Expected latest payment date Payment Delays in Remarks
. date date payment
1 30th April
IPC No:1 2021 30th May 2021 14th May 2021 None OK
(c) Review of Contract Supervision and Monitoring

Arrangements
(i) Percentage of quality progress reports
PPDA regulations of 2014, clause 53(3) (g) requires the contract
manager to prepare monthly progress reports. The project was
executed over a period of 90 days implying that at least two (2)
N/A OK OK
monthly progress reports and a completion report would be
expected.
Document review indicated that two monthly progress reports

and a completion report for February 2021, March 2021 and April
2021 respectively were available and the quality was good.
74
(USMID-AF) program

It is a good project management practice to hold regular site
meetings at least on a monthly basis to discuss issues pertaining
to project execution and progress. N/A OK OK
Document review indicated that two (2) site meetings minutes

dated 14th April 2021 and 1st December 2021 were on file.
(iii) Percentage of approved supervising personnel on
site
Clause 52 of PPDA regulations of 2014 requires appointment of a
N/A OK OK
contract manager for the contract projects. Review of the project
management file revealed that a Contract Manager was duly
appointed vide letter dated 1st February 2021.
(iv) Percentage of approved equipment on site
At the time of audit, works had been completed so no equipment
was expected on site. Review of the project management records
N/A OK OK
indicated that the contractor mobilized equipment/tools such as;
tipper lorry, spades and concrete mixer which were adequate to
deliver the project.
(d) Review of Contract Supervision and Monitoring
Arrangements during project closure
(i) Presence of detailed certificate of completion
Review of the project management records indicated that a N/A OK OK
substantial completion certificate stating the project completion
date as 30th April 2021 and accompanied with a snag list was
issued.
(ii) Presence of “As-built” drawings and maintenance
Lack of as-built The Accounting
manuals
drawings may Officer should
Special Conditions of Contract GCC 58.1 stated that the date by
hinder economic ensure that As-built
which “As built” drawings were required was 30 days before
and effective drawings are always
completion of the contract period. However, review of the project
future prepared and duly
management records revealed that “As-built” drawings were not
maintenance approved at every
available on file.
interventions. project completion.
75
(USMID-AF) program
Management Response
We acknowledge the findings of the auditors. Auditors’ recommendation noted, As-built drawings will always be prepared and duly
approved on future projects.
Auditor’s Remark
The management response noted and will be followed up in future audits.
(iii) Percentage of DLP progress/monitoring reports
Document review showed that there were DLP monitoring reports N/A OK OK
during the Defects Liability Period.
(iv) Presence of defects liability certificate
On reviewing the project management file, the audit team
N/A OK OK
established that a defects liability certificate was issued and it
showed the defects liability end date as 1st November 2021.
76
(USMID-AF) program

The score on effectiveness was 32.00 out of 35 as detailed below:

(a) Assessment of the quality of works under The Municipality should
implementation It poses a risk of use ensure that materials to be
Review of the project management file showed that Poor project of materials that do used in the permanent works
non of the expected three (03) material test results management not conform to the are tested to avoid using
were on file as indicated in the table below: specifications. materials that do not meet
specification.
S/No Material/Layer/Product Tests expected Tests results on file

Cube strength tests Absent
1 Fence (Chain-link) Aggregates tests Absent
Sand tests Absent
Management Response
We acknowledge the findings of the auditors. Auditors recommendation noted on future projects tests will be carried out on all materials.
Auditor’s Remark
The management response is noted and will be followed up in future audits.
(i) Conformance of site works to design
drawings and physical specifications
Some works items were checked by the audit team to
ascertain conformance to design drawings and
N/A OK OK
physical specifications. It was observed that the two
(02) items checked both conformed to design
drawings and physical pecifications 100% as indicated
in the table below:
S/n Item Description Drawings/ Field checks/measurements Deviation Conformity
Specifications
1 Concrete pole (Height in 2.7 2.7 - OK
m)
2 Galvanized chain link G-10 G-10 - OK
gauge
77
(USMID-AF) program

(ii) Conformance of audit test results to
specifications
The audit team carried out nondestructive insitu tests
N/A OK OK
on some components of the project. All the items
tested fulfilled the specification requirements thus
translating into 100% conformance to specifications.
In-situ tests Equipment Structure/Layer tested Auditor’s results Specification Comment
(N/mm2) (N/mm2)
Concrete Schmidt Concrete pole 1 27.30 25 Passed
compressive hammer Concrete pole 2 28.10 25 Passed
strength Concrete pole 3 25.30 25 Passed
Concrete pole 4 25.00 25 Passed
(iii) Physical inspection to ascertain presence of
defects
The audit team inspected works in the presence of the
N/A OK OK
Engineering Staff from Entebbe Municipal Council. There
were no visible defects observed on the infrastructure at
the time of audit.
(b) Assessment of the utilization of the
N/A OK OK
infrastructure
78
(USMID-AF) program

(i) Observed functionality and usage
At the time of audit, the works had been completed.
However, the project works were observed to be in good
shape and serving their intended purpose.
(c) Assessment of the fulfilment of environmental
and social impact requirements, health and safety
(i) Presence of an ESIA/ESMF or
environmental screening report
N/A OK OK
Review of project management records indicated that the
City Environmental Officer prepared an ESMP which was
approved by the Accounting Officer on 30th Sept, 2020.
(ii) Evidence of fulfillment of environmental
protection measures
Review of project management records indicated that N/A OK OK
during construction, environmental protection measures
were undertaken and reported on in a report dated 27th
July, 2021 with a certificate accordingly issued.
(iii) Evidence of fulfillment of social protection
measures
At the time of audit, the works had been completed. N/A
Review of project management records indicated that OK OK
during construction, social protection measures were
undertaken and reported on in a report dated 27th July,
2021 with a certificate accordingly issued
(iv) Evidence of fulfillment of OSH measures
Review of project management records indicated that
N/A OK OK
during construction, OSH measures were undertaken and
reported on in a report dated 27th July, 2021 with a
certificate accordingly issued.
79
Value for Money Audit/assessment of the Municipalities participating in the Uganda Support to Municipal Infrastructure Developm
(USMID-AF) program
3.5 Project Title: Renovations of Toilets at Kiwafu P/S

The project details are presented in the following table;

Project Name Renovations of Toilets at Kiwafu P/S.
Procurement Reference No. Ente752/Wrks/2020-2021/00009
Contract Project Manager The Municipal Engineer, Entebbe Municipal
Council
Client Entebbe Municipal Council
Contractor Open World Contractors
P.O Box 36544, Kampala, Uganda
Tel: 0781888000/0392000999
Contract signature date Not availed
Funding DDEG
Implementation mode Contracted
Commencement date 12th May, 2021
Original contract period 1.5 months
Expected date of completion 26th June 2021
Actual completion date 30th May 2021
Contract sum UGX 33,933,493 (VAT Inclusive)
Defects Liability Period 180 days
Actual amount spent UGX 33,561,289 (VAT Inclusive)

 Removal of existing materials such as windows, doors, roof covering ,timber;
 Demolition of peeling off plaster;
 Desilting and unblocking of septic tank and drainage lines;
 Fixing of the iron sheets and fascia board;
 Painting.
3.5.3 Status of works at the time of audit

At the time of audit, the project was complete and the toilet was in use.
Status of Kiwafu Primary School water-borne toilet at the time of audit
80
Value for Money Audit/assessment of the Municipalities participating in the Uganda Support to Municipal Infrastructure Developm
(USMID-AF) program

81

The score on efficiency was 27.00 out of 35 as detailed below:

(i) Assessment of physical progress lag basing on initial work
Programme
Document review indicated that there was no work program,
commencement order and contract agreement on file. However,
based on the defects liability certificate, it was noted that the
commencement date was 12th May 2021 and actual completion date N/A OK OK
was 30th May 2021.
It also showed that the original project duration was 1.5 months
implying that the initial intended completion date was 26th June 2021.
Therefore, the project was completed within the initial completion
duration and so there was no physical progress lag.
(ii) Assessment of physical progress lag basing on revised
work Programme N/A OK OK
The project was completed within the initial completion period.
(a) Assessment of the existence and effectiveness of
The Accounting Officer
internal controls for certification and payment of executed
should ensure that all
works
necessary
(i) Presence of detailed payment supporting documentation
Poor project Payments may be made for documentation to show
Clause 17(4) of the PPDA (contracts) regulations 2014 requires that
management. unexecuted works. proof of works done is
the actual work done is measured during the performance of a
attached to certificates
contract and is finally reconciled on effecting payments. The auditor
being effecting
noted that detailed payment supporting documents like measurement
payments.
sheets were not availed to the audit team.
Audit review of the available payment documents revealed that
N/A OK OK
payments for both IPC No:1 and retention certificate were consistent
with certified amounts as shown in the table below:
82

S/No Type of payment Certified amount (UGX) Paid amount (UGX) Payment above certified amount Remarks
1 IPC No:1 31,883,202 31,883,202 None OK
2 Retention certificate 1,678,087 1,678,087 None OK
(iii) Percentage of overpayments (as a result of variance
between audit values and certified works) to the certified
value of the works
N/A N/A N/A
Comparison of certified quantities of the works with the sampled
measured quantities revealed there was no overpayent as indicated
in the table below:
works (10 Marks)
Uni Planned Rate Payment Audit Diff. between audit Amount
Item checked Remarks
t quantity (UGX) quantity quantity & paid quantities over paid
Fascia board m 40 16,000 30.40 31.20 -0.80 0
Door with mahogany
No 8 200,000 8 8 0 0
frame
Total Payment (Final Contract Amount): 33,561,289
% Overpayment: 0.0
(i) Timeliness in Payments
The conditions of contract were not availed so the audit team could
not determine the specified period of time within which payments
were to be effected. Audit could therefore not assess the timeliness
in payments as shown in table below:
S/No Type of Certified date Expected latest Date of Delays in Remarks
payment payment date payment payment
1 IPC No:1 10th June 2021 21st June 2021 Could not be Conditions of contract not availed so audit could
Could not be
determined not determine the time within which paymnts
2 Retention 28th February 2022 determined 5th April 2022
were to be made.
(v) Review of Contract Supervision and Monitoring Poor project Lack of information/ data The Accounting officer
Arrangements management which limits stakeholders should put measures to
83

(i) Percentage of quality progress reports from making informed ensure that quality
Clause 53(3) (g) PPDA regulations of 2014 requires the Contract decisions. progress reports
Manager to prepare monthly progress reports. The project was addressing all key
executed in 19 days so one progress report was expected. However, project aspects are
on no progress report was found on file. always prepared for all
projects.
Management Responses
We acknowledge the findings of the auditors. Progress reports were prepared and a copy has been attached for your verification.
Auditor’s Remark
No progress report was availed for verification.
It is good project management practice to hold regular site meetings The Accounting Officer
at least on a monthly basis to discuss issues pertaining to project should ensure that site
Poor project
execution and progress. Project bottlenecks cannot meeting are held
management and
be discussed in time. regularly and their
administration.
However, review of the project management file indicated that no respective minutes
site meeting records were available thus no site meetings held. should be prepared.
(iii) Approved supervising personnel on site

Clause 52 of PPDA regulations of 2014 requires the Accounting
Officer to appoint a Contract Manager to manage the contract.
N/A OK OK
Review of the project management records indicated that a Contract
Manager was appointed vide letter dated 23rd April 2021.
(iv) Approved equipment on site The Accounting officer
At the time of audit, works had been completed. Document review should put measures to
Lack of information/ data
revealed there was no information on file that could be utilized to ensure that quality
which limits stakeholders
determine the level of equipment mobilized during project progress reports
Poor project from making informed
construction. addressing all key
management decisions.
project aspects like
equipment mobilization
are always prepared for
all projects.
84
Management Response
We acknowledge the findings of the auditors but do clarify that In the progress report for the month of June 2021, under equipments, it is indicated
that there was a compressor and cutter at site. annex 22(b).
Auditor’s Remark
The management response is noted but no verifiable evidence [annex 22(b)] of a progress report copy as stated above was provided.
(vi) Review of Contract Supervision and Monitoring The Accounting Officer
Arrangements during project closure should inspect works at
(i) Presence of detailed certificate of completion Poor project Rectification of snags may completion and identify
There was no completion certificate on file. management. not be done effectively. any defects then issue
the completion
certificate.
Management Response
We acknowledge the findings of the auditors but clarify that a completion certificate for the works was prepared and a copy has been attached for your
verification annex 23.
Auditor’s Remark
The management response is noted but no verifiable evidence of a substantial certificate of completion copy [annex 23] as stated above was provided.
(ii) Presence of As-built drawings and maintenance manuals The Accounting Officer
There were no As-built drawings on file. Lack of as-built drawings should ensure that As-
Poor project
may hinder economic and built drawings are
management
effective future always prepared and
maintenance interventions. duly approved at every
project completion.
(iii) Percentage of DLP progress / monitoring reports
Document review showed that there were DLP monitoring reports N/A OK OK
during the Defects Liability Period.
(iv) Presence of defects liability certificate
The Defects Liability Certificate stating the end of defects liability N/A OK OK
period as 2nd Dec 2021 was prepared and accordingly issued.
85

The score on effectiveness was 27.05 out of 35 as detailed below:

(c) Assessment of the quality of works under The Accounting Officer should
implementation It poses a risk of use of ensure that materials to be
(i) Percentage of material test results on file Poor project materials that do not used in the permanent works
Review of the project management file showed that the management conform to the are tested to avoid using
expected material test result for sand was not on file as specifications. materials that do not meet
indicated in the table below: specification.
S/No Tests Expected Tests results on file
1 Sand tests Absent
Management Response
We acknowledge the findings of the auditors. Auditors recommendation noted ,materials tests will be carried out on future projects.
Auditor’s Remark
(ii) Percentage conformance of site works to design
drawings and physical specifications N/A OK OK
The audit team did not carry out any checks on site works.
specifications
The audit team did not carry out any tests since it was a N/A N/A N/A
renovation without any structural elements and there was also
no material on site at the time of audit.
(iv) Physical inspection to ascertain presence of defects
The auditors inspected the works on 22nd July 2022 in the
presence of the Engineering Staff from Municipal Engineer’s
N/A OK OK
Office Entebbe. The works had been completed at the time of
audit and no visible defects were observed on the works done
under this contract.
(d) Assessment of the utilization of the infrastructure
N/A OK OK
(vii) Observed functionality and usage
86

At the time of audit (22nd June 2022), the works had been
completed and the facility was in use.
(e) Assessment of the fulfilment of environmental and
social impact requirements, health and safety
screening report N/A OK OK
A At the time of audit, the works had been completed. Review
of the project management file revealed that an ESMP was
prepared by the Environmental Officer.
(ii) Evidence of fulfillment of environmental
protection measures
Review of the completion report on implementation of
N/A OK OK
environmental and social mitigation plan dated 27th July 2021
showed that the environmental protection measures were
fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Environmental Officer.
(iii) Evidence of fulfillment of social protection
measures
Review of the completion report on implementation of
N/A OK OK
environmental and social mitigation plan dated 27th July 2021
showed that the social protection measures were fulfilled to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Officer.
(iv) Evidence of fulfillment of OSH measures The Accounting Officer should
The audit team established that there was no information on Poor project Risk of injury to the always ensure that OSH
file pertaining the fulfilment of OSH measures. management workers measures are undertaken
during project execution.
Management Response
We acknowledge the findings of the auditors however during execution of works safety gears and safe site conditions were observed. Auditors
recommendation noted and on future projects more OSH measures will be put in place.
Auditor’s Remark
87
APPENDIX 1: PROJECT SCORE CARD

ENTEBBE SCORE CARD
ASSESSMENT TOOL CRITERIA: PROJECT SCORE
No Objective Sub-Objective Parameters Criteria USMID URF - URF - DDEG - DDEG -
Busambaga Busambaga Namate Kiwafu
bitumen stone chain P/S
pitching link
1 To assess the To assess the Unit project item Cross referencing across 4.63 3.71 N/A N/A N/A
unit cost of price differences
costs as per all Municipalities
delivery of the between similar Engineer’s Estimates.
infrastructure quality (5 Marks)
and
against works of quantity of
Unit project item Cross referencing across 9.76 8.67
similar nature works (30costs as per signed all Municipalities
(Economy) Marks) Contracts (10
Max points - Marks)
30 Unit cost per square Cross referencing across 14.45 9.67
meter of all Municipalities
road/building works
among the
Municipalities (15
Marks).
TOTAL SCORE FOR ECONOMY 28.84 22.05 N/A N/A N/A
2 To assess the To assess the Physical progress lag Physical lag ≤ 5% - 0 0 5 5 5
level of progress of the – (difference between 5mks; >5% - ≤ 10% -
implementation works against the planned as 4mks; >10% - ≤ 20% -
of the works time (10 derived from initial 3mks; >20% - ≤ 25% -
against the Marks) work program and 2mks; >25% - ≤ 30% -
agreed contract actual physical 1mk; above 30% - 0mks
progress) (5 Marks)
88
approved work Physical progress lag Physical lag ≤ 5% - N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A
programs and – (difference between 5mks; >5% - ≤ 10% -
outputs the planned as 4mks; >10% - ≤ 20% -
(Efficiency) derived from the 3mks; >20% - ≤ 25% -
Max points - current approved 2mks; >25% - ≤ 30% -
35 revised work program 1mk; above 30% - 0mks
and actual physical
progress) (5 Marks)
To assess the Presence of detailed Detailed measurement 0 2 2 0 0
existence and payment supporting sheets present – 2mks;
effectiveness of documentation e.g. Absent – 0mks
internal controls measurement sheets
for certification (2 Marks)
and payment of Payment above No payment above 3 0 3 3 3
executed works certified amounts certified amount –
(18 Marks) (IPCs, fee notes, 3mks; Any payment
material supply above certified amount -
invoices etc.) (3 0mks
Marks)
% of overpayment 0% overpayment - 10 5 10 10 10
(as a result of 10mks; 1% - ≤5% -
variance between 5mks; 6 - ≤10% -
audit values and 2mks; above 10% -
certified works) to the 0mks
certified value of the
works (10 Marks)
Timeliness in payment Payment within 0 0 0 3 0
of IPCs, fee notes, contractual provision –
material supply 3mks; Otherwise – 0mks
invoices etc. (3
Marks)
89
To Review % of quality progress 100% reports – 2mks; 2 0 0 2 0

contract reports prepared (2 otherwise - 0mks
Supervision and Marks)
monitoring Presence of Minutes Minutes of site meetings 2 2 2 2 0
arrangements (7 of Site Meetings (2 present –2mks,
Marks) Marks) Otherwise - 0
% of approved 100% personnel – 2 2 2 2 2
supervising personnel 2mks; otherwise - 0mk
on site (2 Marks)
% of approved 100% equipment – 1 1 0 1 0
equipment on site (1 1mk; otherwise - 0mk
Mark)
To Review Presence of detailed At least 3/4 N/A N/A Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
contract certificate of parameters present -
Supervision and completion and snag Satisfactory,
monitoring list otherwise,
arrangements Presence of As-built unsatisfactory.
during project drawings and
Closure maintenance manual
(Satisfactory/ Presence of DLP
unsatisfactory) progress/monitoring
reports
Prescience of
detailed Liability
Certificate
TOTAL SCORE FOR EFFECIENCY 23.33 12.00 28.00 32.67 23.33
3 To assess the To assess the Percentage of 100% present – 3mks, 2 0 0 0 0
usage and quality of works Material test results 90% - ≤100% - 2mks;
quality of the under on file (3 Marks) 80% - ≤90% - 1mk,
Less than 80% - 0mk
90
infrastructural implementation % conformance of 100% conformance – 5 0 0 5 N/A

works (19 Marks) site works to design 5mks, <100% - ≥80% -
undertaken by drawings and physical 3mks, <80% - ≥60% -
the specifications (5 1mk, Less than 60% -
Municipalities Marks) 0mk
(effectiveness) % conformance of 100% conformance – 8 8 N/A 8 N/A
Max points - audit test results to 8mks, 99% - ≥80% -
35 specifications (8 3mks, 79% - ≥60% -
Marks) 1mk, Less than 60% -
0mk
Presence of defects No defects observed – 3 2 2 3 3
from visual 3mks; Minor defects
observations (3 observed – 2mks; Major
Marks) defects observed - 0mks
To assess the Observed Functioning and used as N/A 6 5 8 8
utilization of the Functionality and intended – 8mks; below
infrastructure (8 Usage (8 Marks) – pro-rata basing on
Marks) team judgment
To assess the Presence of an Presence of an 2 2 2 2 2
fulfillment/ ESIA/ESMF or ESIA/ESMF or
adequacy of environmental environmental screening
implemented screening report (2 report - 2mks, otherwise
environmental, Marks) - 0mks
health, social Evidence of fulfillment Evidence of fulfillment of 0 0 2 2 2
and safety of environmental environmental
measures (8 protection measures protection measures - 2
marks) (2 Marks) mks
Evidence of fulfillment Evidence of fulfillment of 0 0 2 2 2
of social protection social protection
measures (2 Marks) measures - 2 mks
Evidence of fulfillment Evidence of fulfillment 2 0 2 2 0
of OSH measures (2 of OSH measures - 2
91
marks) mks
Total score for effectiveness 28.52 18.00 19.44 32.00 27.05

Total score per project 80.69 52.05 67.78 92.38 71.97
92

Lan VFM VFM 2020 21 1692899168

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lan VFM VFM 2020 21 1692899168

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

VALUE FOR MONEY FINAL AUDIT REPORT ON A SAMPLE OF SELECTED URBAN

Kampala Road (USMID) Busambaga Road (URF)

FINAL AUDIT REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................i

CHAPTER ONE ....................................................................................................... 12

CHAPTER TWO .......................................................................................................15

AUDIT METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 15

CHAPTER THREE ....................................................................................................24

DETAILED FINDINGS PER PROJECT ......................................................... 24

APPENDIX 1: PROJECT SCORE CARD .......................................................... 88

2 Upgrading of 774,688,000 5.29% 5.45% URF Force

RESULTS OF ASSESSMENT AND KEY FINDINGS

Results of the Assessment

Economy Assessment Weighted Score 28.47 out of 30

Highest disparities in the Municipality

Efficiency Assessment Weighted Score 22.89 out of 35

Effectiveness Assessment Weighted Score 27.80 out of 35

Key Findings per Project

advanced stage was drainage works along Kampala Road

availed so the audit team could not determine conformance

completed and the drainage channel was operational but

OVERALL AUDIT CONCLUSION

USMID Funded Infrastructure

Non-USMID Funded Infrastructure

5. The overpayment of UGX.3,982,989.53 in the URF funded project should be recovered

31st May, 2023

The Specific objectives of the VFM included:

ii. Efficiency Assessment

c. Review of contract supervision and monitoring arrangements and recommend

iii. Effectiveness Assessment

 Funding arrangements: Projects were selected based on the specified funding

Percentage Weights of Selected Projects

1 Construction 13,440,379,271 91.81% 94.55% USMID Contracted

Economy assessment related to a comparison of the following parameters derived

Field inspections were undertaken at or along each of the implemented projects to

Scoring Criteria for Assessment Tool

material supply invoices etc. (3 Marks) – 3mks; Otherwise – 0mks

Prescience of detailed Liability Certificate

(3 Marks) defects observed – 2mks; Major

Table 2-2: Assessment Criteria/methodology for the Economy Parameters

In Municipalities/Cities where the contractor’s/supplier’s rates for some items were

infrastructure were computed using the formula; � = �����/� , in which Fm is the

Table 2-3: Items for comparison per project category

Clustering of Projects for Economy Assessment

Table 2-4: Clustering of Cities/Municipalities

Clustering of TDG, SFG and DDEG Projects

Clustering of URF funded Projects

DETAILED FINDINGS PER PROJECT

Project Title: Rehabilitation of Kampala Road (2.058km), Lugard Avenue

Table 2-3: Project details

The original scope involved the following:

Status of the project at the time of Audit

Apollo Square (0.115)

(i) Comparison of unit project item costs as per Engineers estimates

Table 3.1-2: Comparison of Engineer’s estimates across

Asphalt Concrete m3 408,699 408,699 1.00 1.00 1.00

(ii) Comparison of unit project item costs as per works contract

Table 3-1-3: Comparison of contractor’s rates across Cities/Municipalities

(iii) Comparison of unit cost per square meter of works

Table 3.1-4: Comparison of project unit costs across Cities/Municipalities

287,388 276,764 15.00 14.45 1.04

Finding Cause Implication Recommendation

infrastructure were computed using the formula; � = ��/� , in which Fm is the