Annual general report of the controller and - Parliament of Tanzania
Annual general report of the controller and - Parliament of Tanzania Annual general report of the controller and - Parliament of Tanzania
starting tendering procedures while the contract has already been signed and payments made since 1/11/2007. The other bidders were disqualified on the grounds of high prices; however, the price paid to P Squared was higher than those quoted by some other bidders. 7.2.5 Tanzania Ports Authority (TPA) Tender for construction of container staking yard at ex- TANESCO using consolidated system - Shs. 4,165,666,875 The audit tests on the contract between TPA and a joint venture between M/S Tangerm LTD of Dar es Salaam and M/S Techno Combine Construction LTD for the construction of container staking yard at ex-TANESCO using consolidated system at a cost of Shs. 4,165,666,875 revealed the following irregularities S/N Item Irregularities 1. Leveling contract 2. Joint venture arrangements -The work of leveling EX-PCMC and EX-TANESCO yards was contracted to CHICO the connection of which could not be linked to the main project of - construction of container staking yard at ex-TANESCO -Original contract sum was adjusted by 56.74% i.e from TZS.245,850,000 to TZS.385,319,000 following the actual BOQ verification of total quantity of excavation of 49,923 from 20,800 The evaluation committee recommended the work to be done on joint venture between M/S Tangerm LTD of Dar es salaam and M/S Techno Combine Construction LTD for a total cost of Shs. 2,184,046,000 (Excluding ___________________________________________________________ Office of the Controller and Auditor General PA&oBs 2007/08 134
VAT). How the Joint venture came about was unexplained to us. 3. Completion time Although the project completion period (45 days) was mentioned to contribute to single source and above limit procurement, the same was extended for 45 days from 29/5/08 to 18/7/08 and latter extended for further 43 days to 25/9/08 hence a 4. Status of the project and Value for Money total of 133 days. The site visit made on 9/10/2008 saw the contractor at site yet to finish the work which implies that the contractor was working without properly approved extended contract time. Further, value for money and the relationship between the nature of the project and the contract price of about 4.17 billion could not be measured as it needs special investigation. I am of opinion that the Authority was not given an opportunity to get better price and competency for the said project through competitive tendering. In order to be satisfied that the project costs represent the best price that could have been secured by the Authority, the management is urged to evaluate the project and or commission an investigative technical audit to ascertain and report on the fair value of the project. Further, failure by the contractor to execute the project within agreed time frame, the contract should be evaluated to establish liquidated damages suffered by the Authority and the same should be claimed from the contractor. ___________________________________________________________ Office of the Controller and Auditor General PA&oBs 2007/08 135
- Page 103 and 104: 4.1.3 Questionable payments (i) Nat
- Page 105 and 106: The above certificate was in favour
- Page 107 and 108: (iii) Tanzania Engineering and Mech
- Page 109 and 110: ensure that this regulation is full
- Page 111 and 112: Customer Meter No. Date connected F
- Page 113 and 114: Date Number of visitors per TANAPA
- Page 115 and 116: Loss of Potential Revenues from Pri
- Page 117 and 118: CHAPTER FIVE INTERNAL CONTROL SYSTE
- Page 119 and 120: prepared (NBC A/C No. 022103000156
- Page 121 and 122: 5.6 Lack of segregation of duties.
- Page 123 and 124: monthly basis to do a reconciliatio
- Page 125 and 126: CHAPTER SIX PERFORMANCE REVIEW 6.0
- Page 127 and 128: From the table above, the operation
- Page 129 and 130: - IPTL and Songas accounted for abo
- Page 131 and 132: Key performance targets not achieve
- Page 133 and 134: failing to effectively and efficien
- Page 135 and 136: SN Donor Year of deposit Amount 1.
- Page 137 and 138: anger post 10 TANESCO Electricity c
- Page 139 and 140: aired without raising Broadcasting
- Page 141 and 142: 6.13.2 National Development Corpora
- Page 143 and 144: CHAPTER SEVEN COMPLIANCE WITH PROCU
- Page 145 and 146: of appropriate procurement methods
- Page 147 and 148: evaluation committee to the tender
- Page 149 and 150: A review of the tendering procedure
- Page 151 and 152: Dodoma (2 sites ) 10 Singida (2 sit
- Page 153: TANAPA. Furthermore, there was no e
- Page 157 and 158: CHAPTER EIGHT CONTRACT MANAGEMENT 8
- Page 159 and 160: 3. Unjustified Single source 4. Lac
- Page 161 and 162: Property Market Consult -TZS. 107,9
- Page 163 and 164: Item Old rate (Shs) New rate (Shs)
- Page 165 and 166: Furthermore, throughout the period
- Page 167 and 168: sub-contractor or agents; and the c
- Page 169 and 170: • A further invoice No. 402706 fr
- Page 171 and 172: in the cost of the measured works a
- Page 173 and 174: The original contract price with Gr
- Page 175 and 176: of the project and not responding t
- Page 177 and 178: (a) Tender Evaluation Documents We
- Page 179 and 180: (i) Selling price for the entire pr
- Page 181 and 182: alance (i.e. 90% of selling price)
- Page 183 and 184: payment of the purchase price, whic
- Page 185 and 186: a building. However, the following
- Page 187 and 188: 9.0 Introduction CHAPTER NINE ASSET
- Page 189 and 190: No periodic physical verification e
- Page 191 and 192: Lack of motor vehicles registration
- Page 193 and 194: Registrar through his letter with r
- Page 195 and 196: gone in dispute which has not been
- Page 197 and 198: of the Authority by the then Presid
- Page 199 and 200: undertake various activities and th
- Page 201 and 202: 9.9 Un-recovered Loans and Advances
- Page 203 and 204: committed by TPB Staff during the p
VAT). How <strong>the</strong> Joint venture came<br />
about was unexplained to us.<br />
3. Completion time Although <strong>the</strong> project completion<br />
period (45 days) was mentioned to<br />
contribute to single source <strong>and</strong> above<br />
limit procurement, <strong>the</strong> same was<br />
extended for 45 days from 29/5/08 to<br />
18/7/08 <strong>and</strong> latter extended for<br />
fur<strong>the</strong>r 43 days to 25/9/08 hence a<br />
4. Status <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
project <strong>and</strong><br />
Value for Money<br />
total <strong>of</strong> 133 days.<br />
The site visit made on 9/10/2008 saw<br />
<strong>the</strong> contractor at site yet to finish <strong>the</strong><br />
work which implies that <strong>the</strong><br />
contractor was working without<br />
properly approved extended contract<br />
time. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, value for money <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> relationship between <strong>the</strong> nature<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> project <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> contract price<br />
<strong>of</strong> about 4.17 billion could not be<br />
measured as it needs special<br />
investigation.<br />
I am <strong>of</strong> opinion that <strong>the</strong> Authority was not given an<br />
opportunity to get better price <strong>and</strong> competency for <strong>the</strong><br />
said project through competitive tendering.<br />
In order to be satisfied that <strong>the</strong> project costs represent <strong>the</strong><br />
best price that could have been secured by <strong>the</strong> Authority,<br />
<strong>the</strong> management is urged to evaluate <strong>the</strong> project <strong>and</strong> or<br />
commission an investigative technical audit to ascertain<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>report</strong> on <strong>the</strong> fair value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> project. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, failure<br />
by <strong>the</strong> contractor to execute <strong>the</strong> project within agreed<br />
time frame, <strong>the</strong> contract should be evaluated to establish<br />
liquidated damages suffered by <strong>the</strong> Authority <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> same<br />
should be claimed from <strong>the</strong> contractor.<br />
___________________________________________________________<br />
Office <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Controller <strong>and</strong> Auditor General PA&oBs 2007/08 135