the republic of uganda - office of the auditor general · 2016-07-22 · the republic of uganda a...
TRANSCRIPT
The Republic of Uganda
A VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON REHABILITATION AND MAINTENANCE OF FEEDER ROADS IN UGANDA: A CASE STUDY OF HOIMA, KUMI, MASINDI,
MUKONO AND WAKISO DISTRICTS
Prepared by
Office of the Auditor General
P.O. Box 7083
Kampala
FEBRUARY, 2012
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND PICTURES..................................................................................... iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................... v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ vi
CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background to the audit .................................................................................. 1
1.2 Motivation ...................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Description of the audit area ........................................................................... 2
CHAPTER 2 ............................................................................................................................................. 7
2.0 AUDIT METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................... 7
2.1 Sampling ........................................................................................................ 7
2.2 Data collection methods .................................................................................. 7
2.3 Data analysis .................................................................................................. 8
CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................................. 9
3.0 SYSTEMS AND PROCESS DESCRIPTION .............................................................. 9
3.1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF KEY PLAYERS .............................................. 9
3.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION .................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER 4 ........................................................................................................................................... 15
4.0 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... 15
4.1 PLANNING AND BUDGETING .......................................................................... 15
4.1.1 Use of RAMPS in planning and budgeting ........................................................ 15
4.1.2 Preparation of work plans for rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads .... 21
4. 1.3 Use of Annual District Road Work plans in execution of works .......................... 23
4.2 EXECUTION OF REHABILIATION AND MAINTENANCE WORKS ......................... 24
4.2.1 Implementation of road works as per work plan schedules ............................... 24
iii
4.2.2 Adherence to Procurement laws, regulations and guidelines. ............................ 30
4.2.3 Availability of essential road equipment ........................................................... 34
4.2.4 Funding of district feeder roads rehabilitation and maintenance works .............. 38
4.3.1 Inspection and supervision of road works ........................................................ 42
4.3.2 Monitoring and Evaluation of rehabilitation and maintenance of road works ...... 45
Appendices I - VII........................................................................................................III
iv
LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND PICTURES
Pages
Table 1: Funding of feeder roads in the sampled districts 15
Table 2: Ranking of roads in various road conditions 22
Table 3: Roads ranked in various conditions in order of priority interventions 26
Table 4: Roads rehabilitated/maintained without RAMP recommendations 27
Table 5: Roads rehabilitated/maintained without RAMP recommendations 28
Table 6: District compliance levels with RAMP recommendations 29
Table 7 (a): Average District Project delays 37
Table 7 (b): District delays (days) in the procurement process 38
Table 8: Amount spent on delayed road projects 39
Table 9: District Procurement Compliance levels 42
Table 10: District equipment inventory levels and status 46
Table 11: Releases to Regional Mechanical Workshops by URF and MoW&T 47
Table 12: District feeder road budgets, releases, expenditure and absorption rates 50
Table 13: District and departmental average delays in receipt of funds 51
Table 14: Planned and actual quarterly M & E visits conducted 57
Table 15: District actual expenditure on M & E activities 58
Picture .1: On-going rehabilitation works on Mukongoro-Kamacha-Bukedea Road, Kumi
District 36
Pictures .2 & 3: Old and abandoned culverts at Mukura-Ngora road in Kumi district 37
Pictures 4 & 5: Old and grounded equipment in Mukono district 46
Picture.6: Unsatisfactory road works 55
v
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AFOSAI–E African Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (English Speaking)
CAO Chief Administrative Officer
DE District Engineer
DP District Planner
IPFs Indicative Planning Figures
INTOSAI International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions
MOFPED Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development
MOLG Ministry of Local Government
MoLG Ministry of Local Governments
MoW&T Ministry of Works and Transport
OAG Office of the Auditor General
PRDP Peace Recovery and Development Plan
PS Permanent Secretary
RAMPS Rehabilitation and Maintenance Planning System
UGX Ugandan Shilling Currency
UNRA Uganda National Roads Authority
URF Uganda Road Fund
vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
The Ministry of Local Government is charged with the responsibility of providing strategic
management and oversight functions to district authorities, such as: policy formulation,
regulation, planning and monitoring of district performance in many government
programmes, such as: area of the maintenance and rehabilitation of feeder roads.
District authorities are responsible for the maintenance and rehabilitation of feeder roads in
their respective geographical locations.
A total of Shs.18.8 billion was spent on the maintenance and rehabilitation of feeder roads in
the five (5) districts selected for the study for four the financial years covering the period
from 2007/2008 to 2010/2011.
Despite substantial investment by the Government, the status of the feeder roads in the
districts remained undesirable. Many roads have potholes, overgrown grass on road
shoulders, broken culverts and clogged drainage systems.
It is against this background that the Office of the Auditor General decided to conduct a
Value for Money audit to ascertain the challenges facing the management of feeder roads
and to analyze their underlying causes; and finally, to make recommendations to address
them.
Audit Scope
The audit focused on the aspects of whether the rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder
roads by district authorities in Uganda were adequately planned and budgeted for,
implemented timely and satisfactory quality of works attained in the four financial years from
2007/2008 to 2010/2011. A case study was conducted in five district authorities, namely:
Hoima, Masindi, Kumi, Mukono and Wakiso.
vii
Key Audit Findings
The following audit findings were noted:-
Use of RAMPS in Planning and Budgeting
It was observed that, 65% (13 roads) of the twenty roads selected in the five districts visited
under the case study had RAMPs recommendations made. Out of the 13 roads with RAMPS
recommendations made, only 62% (8 roads) had the recommendations adhered to. Non
preparation of RAMP and non adherence to RAMP recommendations during rehabilitation and
maintenance of some roads, led to non-scientific cost estimates being used in the planning
process.
Implementation of Road works as per Work plan Schedules
It was established that only 3 (15%) roads in the districts of Hoima, Mukono and Wakiso out
of the 20 selected roads from the five districts were completed as per work plan schedule.
Seventeen (85%) roads were not maintained as per work plan schedules. As a result of the
delayed road works, the public did not receive the intended benefits in time despite
government (districts) spending a total of shs.3,168,711,204 on projects
Adherence to Procurement Laws, Regulations and Guidelines
A sample of 20 roads selected in the five districts was subjected to assessment criteria to
test if all the procurement procedures were followed in the procurement cycle. It was noted
that out of an average of 84 procurement procedures, only 49 were complied with, resulting
in an average district compliance level of only 58% in all the districts visited. Non-compliance
with procurement procedures delayed the procurement process, which, subsequently,
affected the timely implementation of road works.
Availability of Essential Road Equipment
It was established that none of the five districts visited had a full set of essential road
equipment as required. The district inventory of the road equipment ranged between 33% (5
out of 15) for Hoima district to 87% (13 out of 15) for Masindi and Mukono districts. The
failure by government to allocate the requisite number of road equipment to districts,
coupled with constant equipment breakdown denied districts the minimum capacity required
to rehabilitate and maintain their planned feeder road works using the relatively cheap
option of force on account as compared to outsourcing.
viii
Monitoring and Evaluation of Rehabilitation and Maintenance of Road works
It was established that all the five districts visited did not have M&E work plans showing
scheduled M&E visits to be carried out and, consequently, quarterly M&E visits pertaining to
rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads were not conducted as expected. Only 21 out
of 80 (26%) of expected reports for technical monitoring and 7 out of 80 (9%) expected
reports for political monitoring teams were availed to audit. The quality of the road works
executed were neither monitored nor evaluated as expected and, as a result, no immediate
corrective actions were taken, thus affecting the attainment of satisfactory works.
Key Recommendations:
Use of RAMPS in Planning and Budgeting
In order to attain proper planning, which is in accordance with District Road Works
Planning Manuals, districts, in conjunction with URF and MoW&T, should encourage
continuous use of scientific methods to determine the cost of rehabilitation and
maintenance of feeder roads.
The District Engineers (Des) who lack knowledge and skills in the use of scientific
methods of determining rehabilitation and maintenance costs should be trained.
Implementation of Road works as per Work plan Schedules
The implementation of rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads activities should
be according to work plan schedules so as to ensure timely delivery of intended services.
Uganda Road Fund (U.R.F) together with the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic
Development (MoFPED) should ensure that funds for rehabilitation and maintenance of
feeder roads are released in time to enable districts to execute their road works in
accordance with their work plan schedules.
Adherence to Procurement Laws, Regulations and Guidelines
Districts should fully comply with all the provisions in the Public Procurement and
Disposal of Pubic Assets Authority (PPDA) Act, local government regulations and
guidelines to ensure proper identification, planning, budgeting and execution of
rehabilitation and maintenance activities in an economic and efficient manner.
ix
District Procurement and Disposal Units (PDUs) should give proper procurement guidance
in accordance with PPDA Act to district engineering departments on matters concerning
procurement of road contractors.
Availability of Essential Road Equipment
Government should prioritize the allocation of a full set of road equipment to districts,
which will enable them to carry out their planned rehabilitation and maintenance
activities.
District engineering departments should always conduct timely repair assessment reviews
of their road equipment and communicate their repair needs to regional mechanical
workshops in a timely manner.
Monitoring and Evaluation of Rehabilitation and Maintenance of Road works
Districts should ensure that M&E activities are planned, budgeted for and
implemented as per work plan schedules.
District engineering departments should ensure that the recommendations made
by M&E teams are implemented and follow-ups made to attain satisfactory road
works.
1
CHAPTER 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Audit
The Ministry of Local Government is charged with the responsibility of providing
strategic management and oversight functions to district authorities, such as: policy
formulation, regulation, planning and monitoring of district performance in many
government programmes, such as: the maintenance and rehabilitation of feeder
roads.
District authorities are responsible for the maintenance and rehabilitation of feeder
roads in their respective geographical locations. In executing the above
responsibilities districts are facilitated mainly through Central Government Grants and
various programmes set up by Government through which funds are channelled to
rehabilitate and maintain roads. These programmes include: Poverty Alleviation Funds
(PAF), which was later substituted for the Uganda Road Fund (URF) in the financial
year 2009/2010; Local Government Development Programme (LGDP), which was also
later substituted for the Local Government Management Support Development
Programme (LGMSD); Peace Recovery and Development Plan (PRDP); Equalization
grants and development partners (donors) such as: Danish International
development agency (DANIDA)
1.2 Motivation
The Government of Uganda has identified rural feeder roads as an area with a great
potential for eradicating rural mass poverty1. The feeder roads network is presently
estimated to comprise 22,500 km of mainly unpaved roads2 . Over 60% of the road
network in Uganda is extremely bad, rendering some of it impassable. This affects
the transportation of goods and services to markets3.
A total of shs.18.8 billion was spent on the maintenance and rehabilitation of feeder
roads in the five (5) districts selected for the study for the four financial years
covering the period from 2007/2008 to 2010/2011. Despite substantial investment by
the Government, the status of the feeder roads in the districts remained undesirable. 1 http://www.roadfund.ug/Projects/DistrictRoads.pdf 2 Uganda Road Fund Performance statement on road maintenance plan and expenditure programme (Page 54) 3 Document sans-titre- State of District Feeder Roads in Uganda
2
Many roads have potholes, overgrown grass on road shoulders, broken culverts and
poor drainage.
The attainment of development initiatives, such as: Millennium Development Goals
(MDG) of ending poverty and hunger, universal education for all by 2015, gender
equality, child health, maternal health, combating HIV/AIDS and environmental
sustainability; without a proper feeder road network in local authorities remains
hampered.
It is against this background that the Office of the Auditor General decided to conduct
a Value for Money audit to ascertain the challenges facing the management feeder
roads and to analyze their underlying causes; and, finally, to make recommendations
to address them.
1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AUDIT AREA
1.3.1 Mandate
The mandate of Local Governments in Uganda is derived from Chapter Eleven (Local
Governments) of the Constitution of Uganda (1995) which provides the principles and
structures of local governments, their finances, human functions and general
administrative functions. This mandate is further amplified in the Local Government
Act Cap 243 (LGA, 2007) Section 30 which gives the functions, powers and services
of a district to plan and administer service delivery to the citizens.
On the other hand, the Ministry of Local Governments (MoLG) is mandated by the
Local Government Act Cap 243 (LGA, 2007) Sections 95-98 to carry out a number of
responsibilities as follows:-
To inspect, monitor, and where necessary offer technical advice/assistance,
support supervision and training to all Local Governments.
To coordinate and advise Local Governments for purposes of harmonization and
advocacy.
To act as a Liaison/Linkage Ministry with respect to other Central Government
Ministries and Departments, Parastatals, Private Sector, Regional and International
Organizations.
3
To research, analyze, develop and formulate national policies on all taxes, fees,
levies, rates for Local Governments.
Line ministries and other state organs and in this particular case, Ministry of Works
and Transport and URF, are also mandated under section 98 of the Local Government
Act Cap 243 (LGA, 2007) to inspect and monitor local governments.
1.3.2 Vision
The Vision of the Ministry of Local Government is “To have a democratic,
participatory, decentralized local government system that can sustain development
and deliver services efficiently and effectively to the people”
1.3.3 Mission
The Mission of the Ministry of Local Government is “To coordinate, support and
advocate for Local Governments for sustainable, efficient and effective service
delivery in the decentralized system of governance”
1.3.4 Objectives/Functions
Ministry of Local Government:
The Objectives of the Ministry of Local Government are to:
Ensure that local governments deliver services to the population in an efficient and
effective manner;
Ensure compliance with statutory requirements, national standards and policies by
local governments;
Build the capacity of local government councils, necessary for efficient and
effective service delivery.
Districts:
The detailed functions of the district authorities are specified in the second schedule,
part 1 of the Local Government Act Cap 243 (LGA, 2007), which include the provision
of services in areas, such as: Medical & Health, Education, Water and Roads. On the
provision of the road services, which is the subject matter of this audit, section 4 of
the schedule specifically provides that the construction, rehabilitation and
4
maintenance of roads, which are not under Central Government, is a responsibility of
Local Governments (Districts).
1.3.5 Funding
The funding of the district feeder roads activities is mainly through Central
Government Grants and from various programmes set up to rehabilitate and maintain
feeder roads. These include: Poverty Alleviation Funds (PAF), which was substituted
for the Uganda Road Fund (URF) in the FY 2008/2009, the Local Government
Development Programme (LGDP), which was also substituted for the Local
Government Management Support Development Programme (LGMSD) in FY 2009/10,
Peace Recovery and Development Plan (PRDP), Equalization grants and development
partners such as Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA).
Table 1: Showing funding of feeder roads to the sampled districts, for the
years 2007/2008 to 2010/2011
DITRICT AMOUNT (SHS)
2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 TOTAL
Hoima 510,431,329 374,218,077 1,173,793,757 630,388,997 2,688,832,160
Kumi 485,703,697 1,584,826,390 1,107,791,956 794,894,148 3,973,216,191
Masindi 406,760,587 375,481,568 1,729,244,399 913,613,548 3,425,100,102
Mukono 509,630,440 602,883,521 1,482,552,739 566,711,886 3,161,778,586
Wakiso 1,039,786,410 799,557,932 1,288,530,875 2,457,916,533 5,585,791,750
TOTAL 2,952,312,463 3,736,967,488 6,781,913,726 5,363,525,112 18,834,718,789
Source: Audited accounts for respective districts for the years 2007/2008 to
2010/2011
The funding for the district/feeder roads rehabilitation and maintenance in the
selected districts increased by 55% from UGX 2.95 billion in FY 2007/2008 to UGX
5.36 billion in the FY 2010/2011 as reflected in the above table.
5
1.3.6 Organization Structure
MoLG
The ministry of Local Government is responsible for the inspection, monitoring and
coordination of all activities in district authorities as laid out in part IX of the Local
Government Act 1997. Politically, the MoLG is headed by a Cabinet Minister, assisted
by one (1) Minister of State. The Permanent Secretary (PS) is the overall technical
supervisor and accounting officer of the Ministry. Below the PS are two (2) Directors
namely: the Director of Local Governments Administration and the Director Local
Government Inspection.
Districts
Politically, Local Council Five (LC 5) Chairpersons are the heads of the Districts
assisted by Secretaries of Standing Committees of the District Council (DC).
Technically the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
of the District assisted by the Deputy CAO. There are various heads of departments
including: head of works and technical services, head of natural resources, head of
finance, head of production and head of education. The works and technical services
department is the one responsible for rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads.
Details are shown in Appendix I
1.4 Audit Objectives
The overall audit objective of the study was to assess whether district authorities in
Uganda rehabilitated and maintained feeder roads economically, efficiently and
effectively. The specific objectives of the audit were:-
I. To assess whether districts adequately planned and budgeted for feeder roads
rehabilitation and maintenance activities.
II. To assess whether planned activities were implemented on time.
III. To assess whether works for rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads were
inspected and supervised.
IV. To assess whether works for rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads were
monitored and evaluated.
6
1.5 Audit Scope
The audit focused on the aspects of whether rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder
roads by district authorities in Uganda were adequately planned and budgeted for,
implemented timely and satisfactory quality of works attained for four financial years
from 2007/2008 to 2010/2011. A case study was conducted in five district authorities
namely; Hoima, Masindi, Kumi, Mukono and Wakiso.
7
CHAPTER 2
2.0 AUDIT METHODOLOGY
The audit was conducted in accordance with the International Organization of
Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) performance auditing standards and guidelines
as set out in the VFM audit manual of the Office of the Auditor General.
Those standards require that the audit should be 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.
2.1 Sampling
The selection was based on levels of funding as per U.R.F releases to districts and
high risks as laid out in the previous annual report of the Auditor General for the
years under review. Four (4) highly funded roads on rehabilitation and maintenance
were selected from each district. For the years 2007/2008 to 2010/2011,
documentary reviews were made to ascertain whether the rehabilitation and
maintenance works were executed as planned. Physical inspection was conducted on
selected roads that had been rehabilitated and maintained in the FY 2010/2011 to
ascertain their status.
2.2 Data Collection Methods
Various methods were used for collecting data from the field and these included:
document review, interviews and physical inspections.
Interviews
Officials from the MoLG namely: the Director of Local government inspection, the
Commissioner, Urban inspection and the Commissioner, district inspection. At the
district level, the CAO, DE, District Planners, CFOs and Heads of PDUs were
interviewed during the audit with the a view of assessing how districts plan, execute
and control the quality of feeder roads rehabilitation and maintenance works.
Documentary Review
Various documents were reviewed in respect of feeder roads covering aspects of
rehabilitation and maintenance as per Appendix II
8
Physical Inspection
Field visits were carried out in five sampled districts from which one road in the most
current FY (FY 2010/11) in each district was randomly selected with the aim of
acquainting ourselves with the status of feeder roads as well as to appreciate the
challenges affecting the execution of road works. The visits were also intended to
gather more information so as to substantiate the data obtained from interview and
documentary reviews and to observe execution on the ground.
2.3 Data Analysis
The team analyzed work plans, budgets, procurement documents, supervision and
inspection reports and monitoring and evaluation reports. Actual commitments for the
roads activities were analyzed to assess the trend of road rehabilitation &
maintenance. Expenditure on the different roads in the districts was also analyzed
with a view of understanding the frequency of rehabilitation and maintenance on
individual roads. The availability and condition of the road equipment at the districts
was also analyzed.
9
CHAPTER 3
3.0 SYSTEMS AND PROCESS DESCRIPTION
3.1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF KEY PLAYERS
Ministry of Local Government (MoLG)
The Ministry is mandated to carry out the following responsibilities in line with
district/feeder roads maintenance and rehabilitation as specified in the Local
Government Act, Cap 243:-
To inspect, monitor, and where necessary offer technical advice/assistance,
support supervision and training to all Local Governments.
To act as liaison/linkage ministry with respect to other Central Government
ministries and departments, parastatals, private sector, regional and international
organizations.
Chief Administrative Officer (C.A.O)
The C.A.O carries out a number of responsibilities as follows:
Is the Accounting Officer of the district
Preparation of annual work plan for the department as the chairperson of the
technical committee
Responsible for road maintenance and rehabilitation
Expend all monies for road maintenance and rehabilitation as and when available
Report on quarterly basis to the line ministry and other funders as required
Account, monitor and ensure value for money District Engineer
The District Engineer carries out a number of responsibilities as follows:
Carry out annual inventory of district roads
Budget for interventions as spelt out in road inventory
Prepare terms of reference i.e. getting Bills of Quantities (B.O.Q) and drawings
Submit B.O.Qs and designs to the Procurement and Disposal Unit (PDU) for
Bidding process
Evaluate bids in the Evaluations committee as a technical member
Contract supervision including certification of work done
10
Prepares interim and final payment certificates, defects liability and environment
restoration certificates
Commissioning completed projects
Maintenance of infrastructure put in place to save the investment
District Planner
The District planner carries out a number of responsibilities as follows:
Integrates departmental work plans into the overall district annual work plan
Links departmental budgets and work plans with the overall district budget
Monitors budget performance
Chief Finance Officer
The C.F.O carries out a number of responsibilities as follows:
Preparation of district budgets
Payment of funds
Maintenance of contracts/commitments register
Head of Procurement and Disposal Unit
Prepares district procurement plans
Prepares contract documents
Is secretary to the contracts committee
3.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Planning and Budgeting
Planning
A three year development plan is drawn by the planning unit of every district
authority covering all sectors where sector heads, including District Engineer, submit
their proposals annually. Anticipated revenues and expenditures should be developed
in line with the Local Government objectives, amongst which are the maintenance
and rehabilitation of the district/feeder roads. Development plans for all districts are
integrated into the MoLG budget which is in turn submitted to the MoFPED for
financing.
To come up with the annual proposals, a situation analysis on the road inventory of
feeder roads is conducted by the engineering department annually to assess the
condition of the road structures (bridges, culverts and their head walls), road surface,
11
shoulders and drainages. Findings are fed into software known as the Rehabilitation
and Maintenance Planning System (RAMPS) issued by the Ministry of Works (M.o.W).
The System has road codes and all cost variables for maintenance and rehabilitation
of a road. Assessment is automatically made and roads are ranked in priority
intervention as shown in Table No.2 below.
Table 2: Table showing how roads are ranked in various conditions and in
the order of priority interventions
Rank Condition Priority Intervention
1 Good Routine maintenance
2 Fair Periodic maintenance
3 Bad Rehabilitation
4 Worse Construction
Source: RAMPS Manual 2003.
The system further computes the estimated costs to be incurred on every road
condition. The recommendations of the system are compared to the issued Indicative
Planning Figures (I.P.Fs) by MOFPED upon which the annual district road workplan is
derived depending on the available funds. Beginning with the FY 2010/11, the use of
RAMPS was replaced with programming tables. District engineers conduct physical
surveys and according to their experience and judgment determine the cost of
interventions on the rehabilitation and maintenance of roads.
Budgeting
A regional budget framework workshop is conducted in the month of December and
in that workshop, the MOFPED issues Indicative Planning Figures (IPFs) to each
district indicating the funds the central government is to release to it in the following
financial year. The Finance ,planning and administration departments of district
authorities draft a budget call circular to be issued to each sector head instructing
them to revise and tailor their work plans to the IPFs given. Focus is put on the IPFs
together with the assessment report of the engineering department when drawing
the budget to ascertain what should be given priority.
12
The budget framework paper is prepared by the Technical Planning Committee in
January and a copy submitted to the Ministry of Finance, Planning & Economic
Development.
In April, a detailed budget is prepared and presented to council for approval by 15th
June of every financial year by district budget desk and secretary finance committee
respectively.
Funding Feeder Roads Rehabilitation and Maintenance Activities
The approved budget is submitted to the MOFPED Funding to districts for feeder
roads for rehabilitation and maintenance is channelled through the URF, the Peace
Recovery Development Programme (PRDP) and the Local Government Management
Service Delivery Programme (LGMSDP) on a quarterly basis after signing a
performance agreement with URF. These are supplemented by funds raised through
local revenues and grants from development partners/donors.
Distribution of district road funds to district authorities is determined using the
formula4 below:
A=U+P+S
Where:
A=Allocation to district X
U=Uniform allocation =20% of Total allocation available/Number of districts
P=Population allocation = 60% of Total allocation available (District
Population/National population)
S=Surface area allocation = 20% of Total allocation available (District surface
area/National surface area)
Upon receipt of the funds, the engineering department distributes the funds in the
various categories of routine and periodic maintenance and rehabilitation of feeder
roads as per approved Annual District Road WorkPlan (ADRWP).
4 Annual Uganda Road Fund Performance statement 2010/2011 page 48 and 49.
13
At the end of every quarter, the district engineer is required to submit a report on the
works executed, which serves as a yardstick for subsequent funding.
Procurement
After approving the annual budget, a detailed survey is carried out by the engineering
department to prepare B.O.Qs which form part of the bidding documents. The
engineering department submits to the P.D.U a requisition form and statement of
requirements which details all the interventions to be executed as shown in the
procurement cycle in Appendix III.
The procurement of contractors for the maintenance and rehabilitation of feeder
roads is done by the District Contracts Committee in line with the Public Procurement
and Disposal of Public Assets Act, (PPDA) 2003 which regulates the procurement and
disposal of public assets. The Local Governments Public Procurement and Disposal of
Public Assets Guidelines and regulations, 2008 further amplifies the above Act.
Execution of Works
The planned interventions of routine maintenance, periodic maintenance and
rehabilitation are executed by the successful bidder. The Procurement Disposal Unit
(PDU) in the district is required to maintain contract documents for each feeder road
worked upon detailing payment, progress of works, certificates of works issued,
negotiations, awards, variations and agreements.
The contractor submits a request for payment for the works completed to the
engineer who evaluates the work done by the contractor and when found
satisfactory, he/she issues an engineer’s certificate on works completed. Payments to
a contractor are computed net of retention and other statutory deduction, such as:
withholding tax and advance recoveries, if any.
The road remains in the care of the contractor till the expiry of the defects liability
period as stipulated in the contract terms and conditions. Retention fees are paid
back to the contractor and the road handed over to the district for commissioning in
case of rehabilitation. After commissioning, the districts are expected to maintain the
roads.
Sometimes districts with road equipment units comprising: Motor grader, wheel
loader, Pick Up, Tracks-cavator (Truck loader), tractor, dump truck, concrete mixer
14
can directly carry out maintenance and rehabilitation of feeder roads under force
account.
Inspection and Supervision of Road Works
The engineering department inspects and supervises the contractors during the
execution of works and makes quarterly progress reports and road status reports to
the works committee of the district, sector ministries, URF and other development
partners, in cases where donor funds were used. These serve as a condition to
access subsequent funding from the MoFPED and donors.
Monitoring and Evaluation
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is done by both technical staff and political heads.
The technical staff conduct M&E activities in the district on a quarterly basis and it is
referred to as “Multi sectoral monitoring”, which is conducted by various Heads of
departments on all district sectors, including works. The political M&E exercise is
conducted on a quarterly basis by the district chairperson and councillors who are
guided by the district engineer as a technical person. Reports are prepared by the
district planner, in case of a technical M & E, and by the Secretary to the technical
services committee, in case of a political M & E. The reports are discussed in the
District Council and recommendations made to the engineering department for
implementation.
15
CHAPTER 4
4.0 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 PLANNING AND BUDGETING
4.1.1 Use of RAMPS in Planning and Budgeting
According to the District Road Works Planning Manual Vol.1, the planning and
budgeting of the rehabilitation and maintenance of Feeder roads in the districts
should be triggered by a situation analysis on the road inventory conducted by the
engineering departments annually to assess the condition of the roads structures
(bridges, culverts and their head walls), road surface, shoulders and drainages per
100 meters of every road under survey. The findings of the situation analysis are fed
into software known as Rehabilitation and Maintenance Planning System (RAMPS)
issued by the Ministry of Works (MoW). The System has road codes and cost
variables for maintenance and rehabilitation of roads. Assessment is automatically
made and roads ranked in priority intervention as indicated in the table below.
Table 3: Table showing how roads are ranked in various conditions in order
of priority interventions
Rank Condition Priority Intervention
1 Good Routine maintenance
2 Fair Periodic maintenance
3 Bad Rehabilitation
4 Worse Construction
Source: RAMPS Manual 2003.
The system further computes estimated costs to be incurred on every road condition.
The recommendations of the system on works interventions and costs are used in the
Evaluation, Prioritization and Selection of the district road works to be undertaken in
a given Financial Year.
It was observed that, 65% (13 roads) of the twenty roads selected in the five districts
visited under the case study had RAMPs recommendations made. Out of the 13 roads
with RAMPS recommendations made, only 62% (8 roads) had the recommendations
implemented. Although one Road in Mukono district (Bugereka – Nakyeke – Kasawo)
had RAMP recommendations made, it was not rehabilitated due to lack of funds in
16
the FY 2007/08. Four roads were rehabilitated and maintained at a cost of Shs
513,372,056 without adhering to RAMPS recommendations as indicated below:
Table.4: Showing Roads rehabilitated/maintained without adhering to
RAMP recommendations
S/N ROAD NAME DISTRICT AMOUNT
(SHS)
RAMPS
RECOMMENDATION
ACTUAL
WORK
PLAN
1 Muteme -Mukabara Hoima 65,550,000 Periodic maintenance
of 10 Kms at a cost of
Shs.44.9 Million
Rehabilitation
works at a
cost of
Shs.65.5
Million
2 Bulima - Byebega Masindi 152,502,006 Rehabilitation of 17.7
Kms.
Rehabilitation
of Only 15.5
Kms
3 Kigumba -
Apodorwa -Mboira
Masindi 50,000,000 21.7Kms of periodic
maintenance at a cost
of Shs.75 Million.
Machine
rehabilitation
at a cost of
Shs.50 Million
4 Ibaralibi -
Alimugonza
Masindi 245,320,050 Rehabilitation of
24.3Kms at a cost of
Shs.240 Million.
Periodic
maintenance
at a cost of
Shs.250
Million
Total 513,372,056
Source: Annual District Road Work plans and Contract documents
35% (7 roads) of the roads visited, which were rehabilitated and maintained at a cost
of Ushs.1,083,740,323 had no RAMPS recommendations made. Most cases were
noted in the financial year 2010/2011 when the districts abandoned the use of
RAMPS, save for Kumi district, and adopted programming tables on the
recommendation of the Uganda Road Fund (URF) as indicated in Table No.5.
No explanation was given by the affected districts for not making RAMPS
recommendations prior to the FY 2010/2011.
17
Table.5: Showing Roads rehabilitated/maintained without RAMP
recommendations
S/N DISTRICT ROAD NAME COST OF
REHABILITATION/
MAINTENANCE
(SHS)
FINANCIAL
YEAR
1 Mukono Kigorobya – Sseta -Sezibwa 276,000,000 2010/11
2 Mukono Wagala -Najjembe 399,834,250 2009/10
3 Hoima Kigorobya – Icukira – Kitoba (12Kms) 55,200,000 2010/11
4 Hoima Kitooba - Kyabasengye 193,515,323 2008/09
5 Hoima Kyabesengya-Kaboijana 43,125,000 2009/10
6 Masindi Kitamba – Kijunjubwa (22.2Kms) 200,000,000 2010/11
7 Wakiso Nsangi – Buloba(4.70KM)
Buloba – Kakiri (13.90KM)
315,900,000 2010/11
TOTAL 1,483,574,573
Source: Annual District Road Work plans and Contract documents
It was also noted that the recommendations of programming tables did not include
operational costs such as fuel and allowances for inspection, supervision and M & E,
but only included direct charges related to interventions. As a result, the budgeted
rehabilitation and maintenance costs did not match with those recommended by the
programming tables. Management explained that URF was not funding operational
costs and they could not therefore include it in the programming tables.
Kumi district had the highest level of compliance with RAMP recommendations,
whereby all the four selected roads in the district utilized RAMP recommendations
followed by Wakiso district. This was attributed to the high staffing levels in the
engineering departments of the two districts.
Hoima district did not fully comply with the RAMP recommendations. Out of the four
selected roads in the district, only one had RAMP recommendations, which were not
utilized. The details of district compliance levels are shown in the Table No.6.
18
Table.6: Showing district compliance levels with RAMP recommendations.
District Roads
planned
RAMPS
Recommendations
made
Recommendations
adhered to
No RAMPS
recommendations
Number
of
Roads
Percentage Number
of
Roads
Percentage Number
of
Roads
Percentage
Mukono 4 2 50% 1 50% 2 50%
Hoima 4 1 25% 0 0% 3 75%
Masindi 4 3 75% 0 0% 1 25%
Wakiso 4 3 75% 3 100% 1 25%
Kumi 4 4 100% 4 100% 0 0%
TOTAL/
AVERAGE
20 13 65% 8 62 % 7 35%
Source: Annual District Road Work plans
Failure to utilize RAMPs recommendations, where they were prepared, and the failure
to prepare RAMPS recommendations on some roads in the rehabilitation and
maintenance of roads during the years 2007/2008, 2008/2009 and 2009/2010, was
attributed to laxity by the respective District Engineers (DE), who failed to submit
RAMPS recommendations to the District Technical Planning Committees (DTPC).
However, according to the District Accounting Officers, in the FY 2010/2011, the use
of RAMPS was abandoned following instructions by URF to start preparing DAWPS
using programming tables.
Management Response:
Hoima district
Management explained that all its requests to URF were based on RAMPS
(This explanation could not be verified as documents were not provided to the audit
team).
19
Masindi district
Management explained that it was using RAMPS till the coming of URF
when they shifted to programming tables. The management of the district
further explained that there was irrational allocation of funds to various
stakeholders when it comes to the rehabilitation and maintenance of roads.
For example, the standard cost of rehabilitating the same kilometer of road
differs with institutions: UNRA applied a standard cost per kilometer of
Shs.36 million, Shs.25 million by MoW&T and Shs.13 million by MoLG
(Districts). They called for harmization of the rates applied.
Wakiso district
Management explained that they complied with the use of RAMPS up to the
FY 2007/08, but the programme developed software problems and the
district trained focal person left the district. URF introduced a simpler
format based on road condition and available funds against work plans
approved by the Council.
Mukono district
Management explained that they were not using RAMPS, but it was
instead using programming tables. The management of the district,
however, agreed that RAMPS is more scientific and better since it could
generate road conditions more accurately.
Generally, all districts admitted that RAMPS recommendations, sometimes,
were not utilized due to the inadequate funding released to the districts,
which could not cover all the ranges of the bad roads in the districts.
The management of Uganda Road Fund explained that it had never issued
any instructions refraining districts from using RAMPS, however, it
instructed that the results of RAMPS can be reported in the Annual District
Road Work Plans to URF using a more compatible software with URF
system and, as a result, it advised the districts to use Microsoft excel
Computer programme, (Programming Tables). URF further explained that
the newly emerging districts had not procured RAMPS, and the alternative
option was to advise them to use the Tables.
20
Non preparation of RAMP and non utilization of RAMP recommendations during the
rehabilitation and maintenance of some roads led to non-scientific cost estimates
being used in the planning process. Districts did not comply with the planning
guidelines for the rehabilitation and maintenance of district roads and as a result
Shs.1,483,574,573 spent on the rehabilitation and maintenance of 7 roads, which had
no RAMP recommendations could not be relied on for accuracy and the districts might
not have received value for money on the amount spent. Additionally, the use of
programming tables, which are basically dependent on the engineer’s personal
judgment, is likely to give non-scientific costs.
Conclusion
Districts did not fully comply with the requirement of considering RAMPS
recommendations during the planning and budgeting for the rehabilitation and
maintenance of the roads. The costs of the rehabilitation and maintenance on some
roads were not scientifically derived and this casts doubt on their correctness in the
district budgets.
Recommendations
In order to attain proper planning, which is in accordance with District Road Works
Planning Manuals, districts, in conjunction with URF and MoW&T, should
encourage continuous use of scientific methods to determine the cost of the
rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads.
The DEs who lack knowledge and skills in the use of scientific methods of
determining rehabilitation and maintenance costs should be trained.
URF should expand its mandate to offering technical backstopping to DLGE
engineers in areas where they are not competent enough.
URF should also ensure that the funds released to districts for the rehabilitation
and maintenance of feeder include a portion of operational costs to enable
districts to plan and budget for those activities effectively.
21
Districts should harmonize the requirements of RAMPS with those of the
programming tables to ensure that the two are used complement each other for
proper planning and communication of results.
In future, URF, UNRA, MoW&T, MoLG and other key stakeholders in the road
sector should explore a possibility of developing more comprehensive and
standard software, which would enable planning, budgeting, implementation and
reporting of road works in the sector.
4.1.2 Preparation of Work plans for the Rehabilitation and Maintenance of
Feeder Roads
According to Local Government Finance and Accounting Regulations, 2007 Sections
18 (1), the chief executive shall ensure prompt production of annual plans and
budgets for the council. Section 18 (3) of the same regulations, requires that budget
estimates shall be based on the objectives to be achieved for the financial year and
during implementation efforts shall be made to achieve the agreed objectives or
targets, as the programme of the council. Accordingly, annual district work plans for
the rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads should be prepared in accordance
with approved budgets. Details of interventions and activities for the different
operations of routine and periodic maintenance, rehabilitation and spot repairs are
disclosed in both the annual work plan and the approved budget.
From the five districts visited under the case study, only Masindi district prepared
annual work plans in accordance with the approved budgets. It was noted that in the
four districts work plans were prepared and they indicated the interventions and
activities to be carried out, which were not indicated in the approved budgets. The
budgets only indicated absolute costs of the interventions without specifying the
activities and costs on each road. Notes to the budgets detailing interventions,
activities and costs on each road were not prepared and attached to the budgets.
During interviews management explained that the notes to the budgets were not
prepared being an oversight on their side.
In the absence of detailed notes to the budget, it was difficult to compare the
rehabilitation and maintenance activities specified in the work plans with those in the
budgets. Preparation of annual work plans which are not in accordance with the
22
budget provisions could lead to the execution of non priority works outside the
budgeted resources.
Management Response
Wakiso district
Management agreed that the budgets did not capture all the details of
works on the roads, but were (details) reflected in the Bills of Quantities
(BOQs). It was not a practice to attach detailed notes of road interventions
to budgets.
Kumi district
Management admitted that the notes to the budgets were not prepared,
but explained that both the budgets and work plans are approved by the
Council, hence reducing the fear that the two might be conflicting.
Hoima district
Management explained that they had all the summaries in the budgets
naming all the roads and estimated costs (This explanation could not be verified
as documents were not provided to the audit team).
Mukono district
Management explained that the details of road works are indicated in the
work plans. Management attributed the preparation of budgets without
detailed notes to the absence of a district Investment Plan.
Conclusion
Activities for the rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads in the districts were
not specified in the budgets, in form of notes to the budgets. In such circumstances,
we could not establish that the activities planned and budgeted for were the ones
appearing in the work plans.
23
Recommendations
District Planning Committees should ensure that work plans for the rehabilitation
and maintenance of roads are prepared from detailed activities supporting the
budget provisions.
The District Planning Committees should ensure that notes to the budget are
prepared and attached to the budgets clearly indicating the interventions and
activities to be carried out.
4. 1.3 Use of Annual District Road Work plans in the Execution of Works
According to the District Road Works: Administrative and Operational Guidelines Vol.
5, districts should develop the Annual District Road Work plans (ADRWPs) to identify
maintainable road links and select and prioritize the road works. Vol.1 of the District
Road Works: Planning manual, Section D3 further gives detailed instructions for the
preparation of ADRWP. The actual interventions and activities for the rehabilitation
and maintenance of feeder roads should be in accordance with those in the approved
ADRWP.
It was noted that 17 out of 20 (85%) road works in the five districts sampled were
executed as per ADRWP. Wakiso, Kumi and Masindi districts fully executed their
works, on the selected four roads per district, as per ADRWP.
In Mukono district, the road works on the Bugereka – Nakyeke – Kasawo road, which
were planned for the financial year 2007/2008, were not executed due to lack of
funds as explained by the DE. The district had three roads maintained as per ADRWP.
In Hoima district only two roads were maintained as per ADRWP. Muteme –
Mukabara road was planned for rehabilitation at a cost of Shs.65, 550,000 in the
financial year 2007/2008, but the actual works executed were for periodic
maintenance. There was no reason given by management as to why works on the
road were executed outside the approved plan and the ADRWP was not revised
accordingly. The cost of the actual execution of the works could also not be
ascertained due to the failure of the district management to avail records pertaining
to the payments. Additionally, the annual work plan for the financial year 2008/2009
was not availed for audit and all efforts to access it were rendered futile.
24
Execution of interventions and activities outside the approved ADRWP creates
pressure on district budgets.
Management response
Management clarified that the Muteme – Mukabara road was not planned
for rehabilitation as indicated in the report. The road was planned for in the
FY 2007/08 for periodic maintenance under PAF. (This explanation could not
be verified as documents were not provided to the audit team).
Conclusion
Districts did not in some instances fully adhere to the work plans during the execution
of interventions and activities in the rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads
and this led to the execution of road works outside the planned interventions and
activities.
Recommendation
District Road engineers should ensure that only works for the rehabilitation and
maintenance of feeder roads appearing in the approved annual work plans are
executed.
4.2 EXECUTION OF REHABILIATION AND MAINTENANCE WORKS
4.2.1 Implementation of Road works as per Work plan Schedules
According to the district road works planning manual, the implementation of feeder
roads rehabilitation and maintenance works should comply with the work plan
schedules detailed in the work plan, which clearly define the interventions/activities to
be undertaken.
It was established that only works on the 3 (15%) roads in the districts of Hoima,
Mukono and Wakiso out of the 20 selected roads in the five districts, were completed
as per work plan schedule. Works on seventeen (85%) roads were not implemented
as per work plan schedules. The analysis of annual district work plan schedules,
respective payment vouchers, contract documents and progress reports revealed that
there were delays in the implementation of works, which ranged from one month to
two years, Appendix IV, refers. For example, the rehabilitation of Bullima – Byebega
road in Masindi district delayed for one year and seven months; and at the time of
25
audit (July 2011), the rehabilitation of Kigumba – Apodorwa –Mboira road in the
same district had been abandoned since the financial year 2008/2009.
It should, however, be noted that some roads in Hoima and Wakiso districts were
completed as per work plan schedules. They include: Kigorobya – Icukira – Kitoba in
Hoima district and Kitanda – Sayi – Kiwebwa in Wakiso district.
The average district performance indicated that Masindi and Kumi districts
experienced the highest delays of 22 and 9 months, respectively, in all the four roads
selected for scrutiny in the districts.
Picture .1: showing on-going rehabilitation works on Mukongoro-Kamacha-
Bukedea Road, Kumi District.
Wokers executing road works
Source: Picture taken by OAG staff
In a related development, works on Mukura-Ngora road in Kumi district delayed for 1
½ years as at the time of audit inspection (June 2011). The culverts were delivered
and abandoned by the road sides and the old ones had not been replaced as shown
in the photographs below:
26
Pictures .2 & 3: Showing old and abandoned culverts at Mukura-Ngora road
in Kumi district
Old culverts not replaced. Abandoned culverts
Source: Picture taken by OAG staff
Hoima district was the best performing district with an average delay of 1 month
followed by Wakiso (3 months) and Mukono district (5 months) as indicated in Table
No.7 (a) below:
Table.7 (a): Showing average district project delays
District Road
planned
Roads not
implemented as per
work plan schedule
% of roads not
completed as
per schedule
District Average
delay
(Months)
Hoima 4 3 75 1 ¾
Kumi 4 4 100 9
Masindi 4 4 100 22
Mukono 4 3 75 5
Wakiso 4 3 75 3
Total/Average 20 17 85 8
Source: District annual work plans, payment vouchers, payment certificates &
progress reports
27
The delay in implementing the road works was attributed to delayed release of funds
from MOFPED and URF, insufficient funding, inadequate capacity of contractors (i.e.
human, equipment and financial capacity) to implement works as agreed, machine
breakdown and delays in the procurement process, as explained by the district
officials during interviews. Scrutiny of the contract documents, which were taken
through a procurement cycle, showed that there were delays at different
procurement stages. Kumi district experienced the highest average delay of 76 days
compared to Hoima district with an average delay of 15 days in the procurement
process as summarized in Table No.7 (b) and detailed in Appendix III (b). In
Wakiso district no procurement records were provided for analysis.
Table No.7 (b) showing district delays (days) in the procurement process
FINANCIAL YEAR
DISTRICTS
HOIMA KUMI MUKONO
2007/08 NA NA NA
2008/09 NA 145 25
2009/10 16 22 14
2010/11 14 62 100
AVERAGE DELAY (DAYS) 15 76 46
NA: Procurement files for the sampled roads were not availed
Source: District Procumbent records
As a result of the delayed road works, the public did not receive the intended benefits
in time despite the government (districts) expenditure of a total of shs.3,168,711,204
on projects as shown in Appendix IV. These delays attracted payment of liquidated
damages of Shs.326,868,894 in accordance with the General Conditions of Contracts
(GCC), which provided for a payment of liquidated damages of 0.5% of the contract
price per day up to a maximum of 10% of the contract price as detailed in Appendix
V. The districts did not recover the damages as summarized in Table No. 8 below:
28
Table.8: Showing amounts spent on delayed road projects
S/N DISTRICT COST OF DELAYED
ROAD PROJECTS (SHS)
RECOVERABLE
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
(SHS)
1 Hoima 61,276,533 6,127,653
2 Kumi 1,141,825,304 114,182,531
3 Masindi 795,809,543 74,580,954
4 Mukono 549,832,250 69,980,999
5 Wakiso 619,967,574 61,996,757
Total 3,168,711,204 326,868,894
Source: District Contract documents, payment vouchers and payment certificates
Management response
Masindi district
Management explained that works on the Bulima-Byebega road were
undertaken by two contractors: Minimax Limited and Empa associated
Limited who begun the works at different times. The works were
completed within a period of 8 months by both contractors. Management
further explained that there was no delay on the Kitamba-Kijujubwa road
and the only delay was experienced at Ibaralibi-Alimugnza road. The works
on this road commenced on 22nd January 2010 and were expected to end
on 30th June 2010, but were extended for one month to 30th July 2010. Due
to delayed clearance of the use of closing year balances by the Accountant
General, the works on the road resumed on 1st October 2010 and ended on
31st December 2010 (This explanation could not be verified as documents
were not provided to the audit team).
Wakiso district
Management explained that the district had generally been on schedule
except in isolated cases like when there were delays in approval by the
relevant authorities, such as Solicitor General. Management further
explained that the recovery of liquidated damages had not been enforced
because in most cases the delay was not attributed to the contractors.
29
Contractors sometimes delay due to scarce, and at times, inferior quality of
road plant available for hire.
Kumi district
Management explained that the district had planned for the rehabilitation
of roads, including low cost sealing of one road. However, the modalities
for implementation of low cost sealing were not concluded by the Ministry
of Works and Transport by close of the financial year. The District then
opted to use the money meant for low cost sealing to rehabilitate Atoot –
Kodike road section C. It was at this point then that the contract to
rehabilitate Atoot – Kodike road section C was awarded hence the delay.
There was also understaffing in the PDU, which has been addressed by
recruiting one more staff.
For Mukongoro – Kamacha- Bukedea Road, at the time of audit, gravelling
and culvert installation was complete. However, stone pitching which is the
last activity after swamp filling was underway at some areas of the road as
shown in picture 1 P (Page 36) of the OAG’s report, but the road section
was in use.
For Mukura – Ngora-road, the photograph of the abandoned culverts seem
to have been taken before June 2011. The said culverts have since been
installed. However, management has had challenges with the contractor
who claims to have completed the work whereas he has not. The
contractor has been directed to complete the works. Meanwhile, the
Accounting Officer has referred the matter to the Solicitor General for legal
advice.
Mukono district
Management explained that the delay was due to inadequate equipment
on the side of the contractors.
No explanation was given from Hoima district in regard to the delays in
implementation of road works.
30
Conclusion
Delayed completion of road works hampered the delivery of services, thus affecting
the socio-economic activities and transportation of agricultural inputs and produce
from the country side.
Recommendations
The implementation of the activities of the rehabilitation and maintenance of
feeder roads should be in accordance with the work plan schedules so as to
ensure timely delivery of intended services.
URF together with MOFPED should ensure that the funds for the rehabilitation
and maintenance of feeder roads are released as per district approved budgets
and in time to enable districts to execute their roads works in accordance with
work plan schedules and budgets.
District Contracts Committees should critically evaluate the contractors’ capacity
and previous performance to ensure that only competent contractors are awarded
contracts.
District Procurement and Disposal Units (PDUs) should ensure that the
procurement process is managed in accordance with the PPDA regulations and in
a timely manner.
Districts should consider applying General Conditions of Contracts (GCC), which
govern the timely execution of contracts such that any delay in completion of the
road project will attract the payment of liquidated damages by the contractors.
Districts should ensure that the approvals required from 3rd parties, such as the
Solicitor General, are obtained on time to avoid jeopardising project progress.
4.2.2 Adherence to Procurement Laws, Regulations and Guidelines
According to the Public Procurement and Disposal of public Assets Act, (PPDA) 2003,
the Local Governments (Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets)
Regulations and Guidelines, the procurement and management of contracts require
public entities to prepare procurement plans, obtain procurement requisitions from
user departments, confirm the availability of funds, review contract specifications,
select methods of procurement and evaluate bids, prepare and approve bidding
31
documents, advertise for the services and invite bids, receive and open bids, review
evaluation reports, award and communicate contracts, ensure that awards are
accepted, ensure that contracts are signed, ensure that contract performance is
managed and monitored, ensure that payments to contractors are net of retention
fees, statutory deductions and advances and contracts evaluated at the end.
A sample of 20 roads selected in the five districts was subjected to assessment
criteria to test if all the aforementioned procedures were followed in the procurement
cycle. Compliance levels were noted for each of the contracts awarded on the
selected roads in the districts. On average 84 procurement procedures were to be
implemented per district on the 4 roads selected in accordance with the PPDA
procurement cycle and regulations. Out of the average 84 procedures, only 49 were
complied with resulting in an average district compliance level of only 58% in all the
districts visited. Wakiso district performed well with 95% level of compliance followed
by Mukono (72%). Hoima was the worst performing district with a compliance level
of only 34%. Table.9 shows district compliance levels.
Table.9: Showing district procurement compliance levels
District Procurement activities to
be implemented as per
PPDA cycle and
regulations
Activities
complied with.
Percentage
compliance
Wakiso 84 76 95%
Mukono 84 57 72%
Kumi 84 46 58%
Masindi 84 39 49%
Hoima 84 27 34%
Average 84 49 58%
Source: District procurement records
Non compliance to procurement laws, regulations and guidelines was noted in the
following areas:
Audit established that procurement plans were not availed to audit in 3 out of 5
districts of Mukono, Hoima and Masindi for the FY 2007/2008.
Through the interviews conducted with the Heads of PDUs in all the five districts
visited, it was confirmed that the engineering departments delayed in submitting
32
the procurement requisitions (filled with clear specifications of works and
statement of requirements) to the PDU for initialization of the procurement
process.
It was also confirmed that the approval of contracts by the Office of the Solicitor
General sometimes delayed. For example, the approval of the contract for the
rehabilitation of the Mukongoro-Kamaca-Bukedea road in Kumi district in the FY
2010/2011 was delayed by 42 days.
There was no documentary evidence to show that the districts managed contract
in accordance to the PPDA regulations.
Through interviews with Heads of PDUs and engineering departments in all the five
districts visited, the above anomalies were attributed to under-staffing levels in their
departments. However, scrutiny of the district staffing levels as per Appendix VII
revealed that districts were not highly understaffed. Mukono and Masindi districts
were fully staffed. Audit attributed the causes of the aforementioned anomalies to
laxity of staff in following PPDA guidelines.
Without procurement plans in place, procurements were made haphazardly outside
the approved budgets and work plans and also in contradiction with PPDA regulations.
Non-compliance to procurement procedures delayed the procurement process, which,
subsequently, affected the timely implementation of road works. Also, the failure to
manage, monitor, supervise and evaluate contracts, left the defects on road works
undetected and contractors with poor track record continued to be awarded contracts.
Management response
Mukono district
Management explained that the procurement plans were in place with its
PDU and copies would be sent for verification. (Copies not sent for verification)
Kumi district
Management attributed the non-compliance to the procurement procedures
to understaffing, especially in the Engineering Department, which leads to
delays in submitting procurement requisitions to PDU for initiation of the
33
procurement Process. However, the district has recruited two engineering
assistants in a bid to bridge the existing staffing gap. There was also
understaffing in the PDU which has been addressed by recruiting one more
member of staff. Heads of Departments have also been trained in
Procurement management to address the knowledge and skills gaps. They
agreed to implement the recommendations raised in the OAG’s report.
Hoima district
Management explained that at that time (2007/08) the user departments
used to submit their requests for procurement which were consistent with
the approved budgets and work plans and this was the basis for kick
starting the procurement process. Currently they have a Procurement and
Disposal Unit (PDU) and the annual procurement plans are compiled.
(Copies not sent for verification.)
Masindi district
Management agreed with the finding in the report during the exit meeting,
although it did not respond in writing.
Conclusion
Districts did not fully comply with the PPDA Act, local government regulations and
guidelines and in the circumstance, this caused poor identification of priorities,
planning, budgeting and execution of the rehabilitation and maintenance activities in
an economic an efficient manner.
Recommendations
Districts should fully comply with all the provisions in the PPDA Act, and the local
government regulations and guidelines to ensure proper identification, planning,
budgeting and execution of the rehabilitation and maintenance activities.
The district PDUs should give proper procurement guidance, in accordance with
the PPDA Act, to district engineering departments on matters concerning the
procurement of road contractors.
34
The district engineering departments should always follow guidelines given to
them and should always prepare and submit their procurement requisitions in time
to allow the district PDUs to prepare procurement plans in time.
4.2.3 Availability of Essential Road Equipment
According to the local government policy on districts road equipment, districts are
supposed to have a full set of essential road equipment, which includes: a motor
grader, a wheel loader, a pick up, an excavator (truck loader), a tractor, a dump
truck, a water bouser, motor cycles, a pedestrian roller, a motor roller, a concrete
mixer, and a bulldozer.
It was established that none of the five districts visited had a full set of essential road
equipment as required. The district inventory of the road equipment ranged between
33% (5 out of 15) for Hoima district to 87% (13 out of 15) for Masindi and Mukono
districts.
Further inquiry into the status of the equipment available revealed that only 54% of
the road equipment was in fair running condition and 46% were old, broken down or
grounded. Masindi district was the most affected with 11 out of 13 (85%) road
equipment grounded and broken down followed by Mukono district which had 7 out
13 (54%) equipment grounded. Wakiso district was the only district with all its 11
(100%) equipment in running condition because the equipment were newly acquired
compared to those of the other districts. A summary of the district equipment
inventory levels and status is shown in Table.10 below and district details in
Appendix VI attached.
35
Table.10: Showing district equipment inventory levels and status
District Required
Number of
district road
equipment (A)
Number of
road
equipments
present
(B)
% Road
Equipment
Present
(B/A)]*100
Equipments
in running
status (D)
% of equipment in
running condition
(E)=[(D)/(B)]*100
Old and
grounded
equipment
(F)
% of old and
grounded
(G)=[(F)/(B)]*100
Hoima 15 5 33 3 60 2 40
Wakiso 15 11 73 11 100 0 0
Kumi 15 12 80 7 58 5 42
Masindi 15 13 87 2 15 11 85
Mukono 15 13 87 6 46 7 54
Overall 75 54 67 29 54 25 46
Source: District roads equipment inventory and physical inspection
Pictures 4 & 5: showing old and grounded equipment in Mukono district
Source: Pictures taken by OAG staff
Through interviews with the district management teams, it was explained that
districts were supposed to carry out the minor maintenances on road equipment
while the regional mechanical workshops (Bugembe, Gulu and Mbarara) were
36
supposed to carry out major maintenance on road equipment. This was also
confirmed by the review of the Ministry of Works Scheme for the maintenance of
district and urban roads guidelines5 for maintenance of equipment, which set up the
regional mechanical workshops.
Furthermore, management explained that due to meagre resources at the districts,
they were failing to carry out minor maintenances which later resulted into major
breakdown hence requiring major maintenance from regional mechanical workshops.
Additionally, audit noted that districts were not adequately maintaining their road
equipment to keep them in a good running condition. In all the five districts visited
during the study there was no evidence to show that pre and post repair
assessments were carried out since there were no reports available on file.
This was further compounded by the failure by the districts to send their broken
down equipment for repairs at the regional mechanical workshops despite the release
of funds by the URF for the repair of equipment. It was further established that
despite the release of shs.7,167,018,457 in the FYs 2009/10 and 2010/11 alone to
the regional mechanical workshops at Bugembe and Mbarara, district road equipment
still remained in a poor state as shown in Table.11 below.
Table.11: Showing releases to Regional Mechanical Workshops by URF and
MoW&T
FINANCIAL YEAR MECHANICAL WORKSHOPS TOTAL AMOUNT
RELEASED (SHS)
BUGEMBE MBARARA
2009/10 293,426,400 3,626,874,300 3,920,300,700
2010/11 1,380,085,457 1,866,632,300 3,246,717,757
TOTAL 1,673,511,857 5,493,506,600 7,167,018,457
Source: Cash books and bank statements at Regional Mechanical Workshops
During inspection of the regional workshops, it was observed that a number of district
equipment had taken long at the workshops. On average district equipment had
5 MoW&T Scheme for maintaining district and Urban roads using equipment and road gangs, 2011 page 9
37
taken sixteen (16) months at both workshops without being repaired at the time of
inspection. Details of the time taken to repair equipment are as indicated in
Appendix VIII.
District officials cited the following as reasons for not sending their road equipment to
the regional mechanical workshops laxity by the regional workshops to effect timely
repairs, coupled with fears of vandalising their equipments due to the long time it
takes to repair them. For example, it took more than one year to repair a roller from
Masindi district by Bugembe workshop. However, it was also noted that the districts
did not communicate to the regional mechanical workshops of their road equipment
breakdowns.
The Managers of both mechanical workshops, during interview, attributed the delay
in repairing the district equipment to insufficient funds released, which do not allow
them to work on all road equipment diagnosed for repair. They also explained that
they have to prioritize which equipment to repair first and sometimes succumb to
political pressure. They again noted that the long procurement process does not allow
them purchase spares in time. The contracts committee at ministry headquarters
delay to award contracts. They also noted that sometimes funds are released late and
sometimes at the closure of the financial year. They further explained that districts do
not report equipment break down in time and that the equipment are poorly handled
resulting into major repairs, which require a lot of funds and time.
The failure by government to allocate the requisite number of road equipment to
districts, coupled with constant equipment break down denied districts the minimum
capacity required to rehabilitate and maintain their planned feeder road works using
the relatively cheap option of force on account as compared to outsourcing.
Conclusion
Without a full set of road equipment and their appropriate maintenance, districts
have failed to rehabilitate and maintain feeder roads and meet their obligation of
providing appropriate feeder road networks for the economic development of their
communities.
38
Recommendations
Government should prioritize the allocation of a full set of road equipment to districts,
which will enable them to carry out their planned rehabilitation and maintenance
activities.
District engineering departments should always conduct timely repair assessment
reviews of their road equipment and communicate their repair needs to the regional
mechanical workshops in a timely manner.
The regional mechanical workshops should inturn ensure that the district road
equipment sent to them for repairs are repaired in time.
Government should prioritize the funding of the budgetary requirements of
mechanical workshops to enable them support districts in their efforts to rehabilitate
and maintain feeder roads in their areas of jurisdiction.
The Ministry of Works and Transport should develop strategies that will enable
expeditious award of contracts for the supply of spare parts to regional mechanical
workshops.
Districts should ensure that the equipment operators are given the necessary skills
that will enable them to handle road equipment properly to avoid unnecessary
breakdown.
Management response
All districts explained that their road equipment were acquired as far back
as 1993 and were old resulting into constant breakdown and high
maintenance costs. They agreed that there were delays in repairing road
equipment due to the challenges faced in procuring spare parts by regional
workshops.
URF noted that districts could service their equipment through regional
mechanical workshops, but the workshops delay to repair them.
MoLG noted that the districts lack personnel to properly handle equipment
and this has caused a challenge in their maintenance.
39
4.2.4 Funding of District Feeder Roads Rehabilitation and Maintenance Works
The funding of districts feeder roads rehabilitation and maintenance works is provided
mainly by central government grants, which are supplemented by local revenues and
grants from development partners. After signing performance agreements with URF,
MOFPED is required to release funds on a quarterly basis to districts to enable them
to implement their road works in time. At the end of every quarter, districts are
required to prepare quarterly progress reports showing the progress of works which
in turn serves as a pre-requisite for subsequent funding.
It was noted that over the period under review, a total of Shs.20,636,221,784 was
budgeted for the rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads in the five districts
selected for audit. Out of the budgeted funding, a total of shs.18,834,718,789 (91%)
was released to the districts, leading to a funding gap of shs.1,781,502,995.
Further analysis of the district actual expenditure indicated that only shs.14,
965,652,222 was spent by the districts over the period, which gives an absorption
rate of only 79% despite the budget-release performance of 91%. This showed that
districts did not have the capacity to absorb all the funds released to them as shown
in Table.12.
Table.12: Showing District feeder road budgets, releases, expenditure and absorption rates
District Annual budget
(A)
Actual release
by M.o.F.P.E.D
(B)
Under/(over
funding)
(C)=(A) – (B)
Actual
expenditure/
Absorption
(D)
Actual
absorption
(%)
(E)=(D)/(B)
Wakiso 6,596,830,790 5,585,791,750 1,011,039,040 5,213,650,931 93%
Masindi 4,335,226,070 3,425,100,102 910,125,968 3,087,167,825 90%
Hoima 2,774,206,609 2,688,832,160 85,374,449 2,265,932,616 84%
Mukono 3,162,883,000 3,161,778,586 18,895,586 2,330,296,800 74%
Kumi 3,767,075,315 3,973,216,191 (206,140,876) 2,068,604,050 52%
Total 20,636,221,784 18,834,718,789 1,781,502,995 14,965,652,222 79%
Source: Audited final accounts and General fund account bank statements for respective
districts.
40
From the table above, Wakiso district had the highest absorption rate of 93% while
Kumi district had the least absorption rate of 52% despite the over funding of its
budget by over shs.206,140,876.
Through interviews with the district management teams and document review, the
challenge of under absorption was attributed to delayed release of funds from
funding agencies and from district general accounts to works departmental accounts.
It took Hoima district 49 days, on average, to receive funding from the Central
Government, Kumi (38), Mukono (28) and Wakiso (42). Audit also noted that the
districts delayed to remit funds to district works departmental accounts. In Mukono
district, it took 17 days, on average, for the works department to receive funds from
the district general fund account, Kumi (12), Hoima (9) and Wakiso (8). No records
were provided for audit in Masindi and Hoima districts for the FYs 2007/08 and
2008/09. The summary of both delays is indicated in Table No.13.
Table No.13 showing district and departmental average delays in receipt of funds
FINANCIAL
YEAR
DISTRICTS
Hoima Kumi Masindi Mukono Wakiso
DST DPT DST DPT DST DPT DST DPT DST DPT
2007/08 N/A N/A N/A 8 N/A N/A 8 12 N/A 9
2008/09 N/A N/A 20 7 N/A N/A 8 18 26 4
2009/10 52 6 54 14 N/A N/A 51 10 47 9
2010/11 45 11 40 18 N/A N/A 43 26 52 10
Average
Delay
(days)
49 9 38 12 N/A N/A 28 17 42 8
Source: District Cash releases and Bank Statements
N/A: Dates not extracted due to lack of records
DST: Delays from Finance to districts
DPT: Delays from district General Account to works Departmental accounts
41
The district management teams further attributed the low absorption of funds to the
prolonged and delayed procurement process due to understaffing in some districts in
the PDUs and laxity in others. They also cited inadequate capacity on the part of
some contractors, who sometimes obtained multiple contracts in different districts,
led to work overloads beyond their capacity. Audit also noted that districts did not
strictly observe their work plan schedules, leading to the accumulation of road funds
that remained unspent at the closure of FYs.
The delayed release of funds affected their ability to rehabilitate and maintain their
budgeted roads in time. There is a risk of misusing of un-absorbed funds if unspent
balances on district works account are not returned to the consolidated funds as
required by law.
Management response
The Accounting officers explained that they were under obligation to
transfer funds within two weeks of receipt of funds. Funds are transferred
as soon as they are received except in a few cases of non accountability.
They also explained that some delays in the transfer of funds are caused by
delayed cash release details.
The Accounting officers further explained that the low absorption of funds
was attributed to the understaffing in Engineering Departments and PDUs
and the situation was exacerbated by the districts’ inability to attract and
retain critical staff in engineering department.
Conclusion
Districts did not receive all their budgeted funds with the exception of Kumi and they
also did not absorb all the funds released to them. Due to untimely release of funds
to districts and the low absorption rates, the status of roads in the districts has
remained undesirable and, as a result, the socio-economic development of the
communities is hampered, leading to the continued existence of poverty and low
standard of living among the populace.
42
Recommendations
The Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development should ensure
timely release of funds, with cash release details, to district to enable them
rehabilitate and maintain their feeder roads as per their work plan schedules.
District Accounting Officers should ensure timely transfer of funds to the works
departmental accounts.
Districts should strictly observe their work plan schedules in the execution of the
rehabilitation and maintenance of road works to avoid funds keeping redundant on
district accounts.
The district PDUs should improve their staffing levels and ensure that the
procurement process is streamlined to cut out delays.
The district contracts committees should ensure that competent firms/contractors,
with outstanding capacity to handle district road works, are awarded contracts.
4.3 INSPECTION, SUPERVISION, MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF ROAD
WORKS
4.3.1 Inspection and Supervision of Road works
According to the district road works implementation and monitoring manual Vol. 3,
the engineering department is required to inspect and supervise all road works during
execution to verify progress and report on the quality and quantity of works
executed. The district engineer should visit the works at least once a week while the
district inspector of works should visit and inspect the works at least twice a week as
laid out in the Ministry of Works Scheme for maintenance of district and urban roads
guidelines6 on road maintenance 2011.
It was established that all the five districts had no evidence that they had carried out
the supervision and inspection activities as required. Only three (3) inspection reports
were availed for audit in Mukono district and two (2) in Wakiso district as evidence of
actual visits made for supervision and inspection over the four years reviewed.
6 MoW&T Scheme for maintaining district and urban roads 2011, page 24
43
Hoima district lacked a district engineer and a works supervisor whereas Kumi district
lacked a works supervisor and a senior engineering assistant in charge of mechanics.
Through interviews with district management teams, the above irregularity was
attributed to several factors, namely:
Oversight for not documenting the findings of the inspection and supervision
activities carried out by the engineering department.
Understaffing of the engineering departments; but Hoima and Kumi districts being
the mostly affected.
Inadequate transport facilities such as motor cycles and pick-up trucks to reach
the field to carry out effective supervision and inspection of rehabilitation and
maintenance activities.
Lack of effective inspection and supervision of road works by the district engineering
departments led to a number of defects going undetected, such as; clogged
drainages, inadequate murram, poorly installed culverts and reduced road width thus;
affecting the quality of works. This also affected the timely execution of works as
contractors were not frequently inspected and defects corrected on time.
For example, the drainage system on Wagala – Najjembe road in Mukono district had
not been opened up and the vegetation had started affecting the road banks as
shown in the photograph below:
44
Picture.6: Showing unsatisfactory road works
Drainage system covered with grass on
Wagala – Najjembe road in Mukono
district
Road width being washed away at Ntoma
swamp on Kitamba-Kijujubwa road, Masindi
district
Source: Pictures taken by OAG staff
Management response
Districts explained that they were not adequately inspecting and
supervising road works due to limited vehicles and motorcycles as well as
understaffing challenges faced in the engineering department. They also
explained that there has been laxity in the documentation of supervision
activities and in record keeping.
Conclusion
In some cases, the rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads was not executed
as per work plan schedules due to inadequate inspection and supervision of road
works.
Recommendations
The district engineering departments should ensure that the supervision and
inspection of road works activities are carried out as per work plans and
implementation and monitoring manuals.
The district engineering departments should ensure that the findings of
supervision and inspections are properly documented and recommendations
therein implemented to ensure that corrective measures are taken.
45
Districts should avail transport facilities to the district engineering departments to
enable them to carry out timely inspection and supervisory activities.
4.3.2 Monitoring and Evaluation of the Rehabilitation and Maintenance of Road
Works
According to Local Government Act, 2007, Section 30 (6), a local government shall
monitor the provision of government services or the implementation of projects in the
area. Also according to Ministry of Works Scheme for maintenance of district and
urban roads guidelines7, Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) activities should be carried
out by both the district technical and political teams: “Multi-sectoral monitoring”, on a
quarterly basis. These activities are required to be conducted with the aim of
assessing performance in terms of output, quality and costs of works so as to enable
the generation of M&E reports. These are in turn submitted to the district
management for action and follow.
It was established that all the five districts did not have M &E work plans showing
scheduled M&E visits; consequently, the quarterly M&E visits to the rehabilitation and
maintenance projects were not conducted as expected. Only 21 out of the 80 (26%)
of expected reports on technical monitoring and 7 out of the 80 (9%) expected
reports on political monitoring were availed to audit as shown in Table.14.
7 MoW&T Scheme for maintaining district and urban roads 2011, page 24
46
Table.14: Showing planned and actual quarterly M & E visits conducted
District Quarterly M & E activities conducted Remarks
Technical team monitoring Political team monitoring
Expected
reports
Actual % Expected
reports
Actual %
Hoima 16 0 0 16 0 0 No M&E reports availed to audit for both teams
Kumi 16 6 38% 16 7 44% 13 out of 32 reports were availed to audit of which 6 were for technical and 7 for political monitoring teams.
Masindi 16 6 38% 16 0 0 6 out of 32 reports were availed to audit of which all were for technical monitoring team and no political monitoring reports availed to audit.
Mukono 16 7 44% 16 0 0 7 out of 32 reports were availed to audit of which all were for technical monitoring team and no political monitoring reports availed to audit.
Wakiso 16 2 13% 16 0 0 2 out of 32 reports were availed to audit of which all were for technical monitoring team and no political monitoring reports availed to audit.
Total 80 21 26 80 7
Source: Districts M&E reports availed for audit.
From the above table, in regard to technical monitoring, Mukono district performed
relatively better than the other districts visited with 7 out of 16 (48%) M & E reports
prepared followed by Masindi and Kumi districts which had 6 out of 16 (38%) reports,
while Wakiso and Hoima districts trailed with 2 and no M & E reports prepared,
respectively.
As far as political monitoring is concerned, with the exception of Kumi district which
had 7 out of 16 (44%) of expected M & E reports prepared, the rest of the four
districts visited did not prepare M & E reports.
In additional, even for the few reports that were made, there was no evidence on file
to show that the recommendations therein were implemented by the engineering
departments and no subsequent follow-ups were made by both teams.
47
The interviews conducted with respective districts top management teams attributed
the low levels of conducting M & E activities to a number of reasons as indicated
below:
Districts did not plan for M & E activities due to limited resources available.
Sectors did not remit the required funding to the district planners to plan, draw
schedules and implement M & E activities as required by the various funding
agencies indicated in the district operational guidelines.
It was an oversight not to include the road sector in their overall district M & E
reports.
Audit, however, attributed the failure to conduct M & E activities by both the technical
and political teams of the district administration to laxity and non prioritization of M &
E activities.
The districts’ technical and political teams did not carry out quarterly M&E activities on
the rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads as expected of them, despite the
expenditure of Shs.402,594,245 on M & E activities as indicated in Table No. 15
below:
Table No.15 showing district actual expenditure on M & E activities
FINANCIAL
YEAR
DISTRICTS AMOUNT
RELEASED
(SHS)
Hoima Kumi Masindi Mukono Wakiso
2007/08 30,885,349 0 0 0 74,354,902 105,240,251
2008/09 41,242,998 65,010,126 0 0 67,428,802 173,681,926
2009/10 26,659,916 53,233,152 0 0 43,779,000 123,672,068
2010/11 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 98,788,263 118,243,278 0 0 185,562,704 402,594,245
48
The quality of the road works executed were neither monitored nor evaluated as
expected and as a result no immediate corrective actions were taken, where
necessary, thus affecting the attainment of satisfactory works.
Management response
The districts management teams explained that they conduct multi-
sectoral monitoring and a single district report generated. There are no
specific M & E reports prepared for the rehabilitation and maintenance of
feeder roads.
Conclusion
Failure to plan and implement M&E activities as required by the implementation
manual and non observant of the M&E recommendations overrides the objectives of
M & E of ensuring that shoddy works and defects are detected and mitigated in a
precise and timely manner hence improving the quality of road works executed.
Recommendations
Districts should ensure that M&E activities are planned, budgeted for and
implemented as per work plan schedules.
District engineering departments should ensure that the recommendations made
by the M&E teams are taken seriously to and follow-ups made to attain
satisfactory road works.
Districts should ensure that their overall M&E reports prepared also include the
status of the rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads in their districts.
Districts should prioritize M&E activities on the rehabilitation and maintenance of
district feeder roads to ensure early detection of road defects so that corrective
measures are undertaken for better service delivery.
John F. S. Muwanga AUDITOR GENERAL KAMPALA 14TH FEBRUARY, 2012
I
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
TERMS DEFINITIONS
Road Way for vehicles and other types of traffic which may or may not be
lawfully usable by all traffic
National
Road/Trunks
Roads
These are main routes linking urban centers and Districts across the
international boundaries and are under the control of Uganda National
Roads Authority
Feeder Roads These are roads that connect communities, health center, markets and
Sub counties to service centers and fall under the control of District
Authorities
Urban Roads Roads within Cities, Municipalities and Towns that fall under the
control of Urban authorities
Community Access
Roads
Roads that link rural communities together, major trade centers
markets, and sub counties and fall under the control of Sub county
authorities
Routine Road
Maintenance
Works carried out continuously on a road such as keeping roads clear
of debris, repairing potholes and other minor defects, maintaining
shoulders, road side vegetation control, keeping pipe culverts and
maintenance of signs and signals to ensure there integrity
Periodic
Maintenance
Planned intervention to prevent ingress of water to the pavement and
restore the surface condition of the pavement, graveling, road shaping,
maintenance of Bridges and Culverts at interval of greater than one
year
Rehabilitation of
roads
Planned intervention to restore the road condition (Pavement, road
surface and drainage channels to the original state and this is usually
carried out at intervals of greater that one year)
Construction of
Roads
Planned intervention of providing a completely new road in a
community (Formation of road pavements, road surface and drainage
channels). This is a once for all activity
Good road It’s one with a good shape, smooth running surface, with roughness
less than 8m/Km with no water on the road during rains
Fair Road A road with reasonable shape corrugations and potholes up to 10 cm
deep and has some water on the road during rains
II
Bad Road A road with bad shape, deep depressions and potholes with much
water on road surface during rains
Optimal cost Is where less funds are spent to cover many kilo meters on the road
Technical
Committee
A team of experts and stakeholders mandated to develop standards in
a Specific area/field.
Stakeholders A group, organization or system who affects or can be affected by an
organization’s actions
III
Appendix I
District Organization structure
1. CAO. Chief Administrative Officer
2. DCAO. Deputy Chief Administrative Officer
3. Educ. Education Department
4. PRD. Production and Marketing department
5. Admin. Administration Department
6. Com. Based. Community based services department
7. NAT. Natural Resources Department
DISTRICT
COUNCIL
CAO
Finance
Educ. Health
Planning unit
PRDN Works Admin. Com.
based
SERVS
NAT.
RES.
D/CAO
Statutory
bodies
Internal audit unit
IV
Appendix I continued
STRUCTURE FOR WORKS DEPARTMENT
Administrative support staff:
Stenographer Secretary U5 1
Office typist U7 1
Office attendant U8 1
Driver U8 3
Plant operator U8 2 (One for grader and one for wheel loader)
Machine operator U8 1
DISTRICT ENGINEER – U1E
(1)
CIVIL ENGINEERING UNIT
SUPERINTENDENT OF
WORKS U4 (1)
BUILDING UNIT
ASSISTANT ENG.
OFFICER U7 (1)
ROAD UNIT
SECTION (ROAD
INSPECTOR – U6 (2)
V
Appendix II
Methodology AUDIT
QNS
ASSESSME
NT
DOCUMENT REVIEW PHYSICAL INSPECTION
AQN1 ASC1 - Review Development Plans,
Budgets, work plans and road
inventory survey reports to
ascertain the extent to which
districts are plan and use the
above document for feeder
roads maintenance.
Visit feeder roads worked on in
the years of 2006/07 to
December 2010 ascertain their
status.
AQN2 ASC2 Review documentations
pertaining the procurement
process to ascertain the
extent to which it has
affected maintenance of
feeder roads
AQN3 ASC3 Review Contract documents
(B.O.Qs, Agreements-
Specific conditions of
contracts (SCC)and General
conditions of contracts(GCC)
will show the details works to
be executed, time and cost
- Visit a feeder roads worked on
to ascertain whether works were
executed as per contract
document.
AQN4 ASC4 - Review all requisite
supporting document that
must be submitted before
effecting payment
AQN5 ASC5 - Review Monitoring and
evaluation reports prepared
after M & E exercises and
recommendations given there
in and follow up whether
their concerns are
implemented.
Visit all sites that were
questioned in the M & E reports
to ascertain the extent of
implementing recommendations.
VI
Appendix III
VII
Appendix III (b)
Showing district delays (days) in the procurement process of road works
District FY Road Name Delays in the procurement process/cycle (Days)
Remarks
Hoima 2007/8 Muteme – Mukabara - No documents availed
2008/9 Kitoba – Kyabasengya - No documents availed
2009/10 Kyabasengya – Kaboijana 16
2010/11 Kigorobya – Icukira – Kitoba (12.00KM)
14
Average delays 15
Kumi 2007/8 Mukongoro – Ngora - No documents availed
2008/9 Atoot – Kodike Sections B
(5.00Km)
Section C (3.50 Km)
10 279
Average 145
2009/10 Mukura – Ngora (10.00 Km) 22
2010/11 Mukongoro – Kamaca – Bukedea
(13.60 Km)
62
Average delays 76
Mukono 2007/8 Bugereka – Nakyeke – Kasawo (21.00 KM)
- No documents availed
2008/9 Bugereka – Nakyeke – Kasawo (21.00 KM)
25
2009/10 Wagala – Najjembe 14
2010/11 Kigombya – Seeta – Sezibwa (15K.00M)
100
Average delays 46
VIII
APPENDIX IV
AMOUNT SPENT ON DELAYED ROAD PROJECTS
District Financial
year
Road Name Delays in
implementation
Cost of road
works
(Shs)
Remarks
Hoima 2007/2008 Muteme –
Mukabara
Could not be
ascertained
Not
ascertained
Payment vouchers and
contract documents
missing
2008/2009 Kitoba –
Kyabasengya
2 months 32,071,463 Last certificate issued on
20/06/09 hence works
were delayed by
approximately 2 months.
No certificate of
completion of works
issued to date
(06/06/11) it’s not
possible to ascertain
actual completion date.
2009/2010 Kyabasengya –
Kaboijana
One and a half
(1 ½ ) months
29,205,070 Road works delayed to
start by one and a half
(1&1/2) month, this was
attributed to delayed
funding and lack of
capacity contractors to
implement works as
agreed
Sub
total
2 1 ¾ 61,276,533
Kumi 2007/2008 Mukongoro –
Ngora (6.50 Km)
1 ½ years 144,761,740
Works were delayed by
one year, 6 months and
3 days
IX
2008/2009 Atoot – Kodike
Sections B
(5.00Km) and C
(3.50 Km)
Section B
2 years and
twenty days
150,911,915
Section B
By audit time, the
contract had been over
delayed by 2 years and
twenty days
Section C
1 year, five
months and
thirteen days.
173,448,297
Section C
By audit time, the
contract had been over
delayed by 1 year, five
months and thirteen
days.
2009/2010 Mukura – Ngora
(10.00 Km)
1 year, two
months and
twenty days
203,581,400 By audit time, the
contract had been over
delayed by 1 year, two
months and twenty days
2010/2011 Mukongoro –
Kamaca –
Bukedea (13.60
Km)
1 month 469,121,952 By audit time all section
appeared to be behind
schedule and likely to be
rolled over.
Sub
total
4 9 1,141,825,304
Masindi 2007/2008 Bullima –
Byebega
1 year and 7
months
300,489,493 Road works were
delayed for 1 year and 7
months
Causes as explained by
the D.E:
Delays in funding
from the center
Time lags in
training road
inspectors and
contractor at Elgon
X
Technical school for
Labor based road
maintenance
2008/2009 Kigumba –
Apodorwa –
Mboira Road
Road works
abandoned
50,000,000 Road works not
complete to date, works
were abandoned due to
district machine break
down and limited
funding
2009/2010 Ibaralibi –
Alimongonza
Road
7 months 245,320,050 As per 31st may, 2011
works were still ongoing.
No certificate of
completion issued as this
was attributed to
Contractor lacked
capacity (i.e. Human
capacity, equipment’s
and financial) and issue
of funding coming late
2010/2011 Kitamba –
Kijunjubwa Road
3 months 200,000,000 Works still ongoing as at
31st may, 2011
Sub
total
4 22 795,809,543
Mukono 2007/2008 Bugereka –
Nakyeke –
Kasawo (21.00
KM)
Road works not
implemented
Not
ascertained
Road works not
implemented, there was
no funding for
rehabilitation of roads
over the financial year
2007/2008. This was
further backed up by the
Approved district budget
(See page 49)and
audited final accounts
(See page 44)
2008/2009 Bugereka –
Nakyeke –
Kasawo (21.00
KM)
3 months 149,977,7400= Phase 1
Payments certificates
were made before
signing of contract
XI
Phase 2
There was a delay in
completing the works,
work were supposed to
be completed by
30/03/09 according to
the ADWP but it was
completed on 30/06/09
after 3 months
2009/2010 Wagala –
Najjembe
9 months 399,834,250 Actual works started at
the end of 4th quarter
(June, 2010) FY
2009/2010 and
extended to 2nd
Quarter(October to
December, 2010) of FY
2010/2011
2010/2011
Kigombya –
Seeta – Sezibwa
(15K.00M)
3 months
149,998,000
Actual works started at
the end of 4th quarter FY
2010/2011
Sub
total
3 5 549,832,250
Wakiso 2007/2008 Namasuba -
Ndejje –
Kitiko(8.20KM)
3 months 84,690,524 Delayed by 1 quarter,
this was attributed to
delays in procurement
process and late release
of funds from the
center.
2009/2010 Kikondo – Sokolo
– Kasanje
(8.50KM)
7 months 154,990,000 Intended start date
Delayed by 8 months
and completion period
delayed by 7 months.
2010/2011 Nsangi –
Buloba(4.70
KM)
1 months 380,287,050 Intended start date
Delayed by 2 months
and completion period
XII
Buloba –
Kakiri
(13.90KM)
delayed by 1 month.
Sub
total
3 3 619,967,574
Grand
Total
3,168,711,204
XIII
APPENDIX V
UN-RECOVERED LIQUIDATED DAMAGES ON DELAYED DISTRICT ROAD PROJECTS
District Financial
year
Road Name Delays in
implementa
tion
Cost of road
works
(Shs)
Liquidated
damages
Max.
Damages
Recoverable
Damages
Hoima 2007/2008 Muteme –
Mukabara
Could not be
ascertained
0 0 0 0
2008/2009 Kitoba –
Kyabasengya
2 months 32,071,463 9,621,439 3,207,146 3,207,146
2009/2010 Kyabasengya
– Kaboijana
One and a
half (1&1/2)
month
29,205,070 6,571,141 2,920,507 2,920,507
Sub total 3 1 61,276,533 16,192,580 6,127,653 6,127,653
Kumi 2007/2008 Mukongoro –
Ngora (6.50
Km)
One year, 6
months and
3 days
144,761,740
396,647,168
14,476,174 14,476,174
2008/2009 Atoot –
Kodike
Sections B
(5.00Km) and
C (3.50 Km)
Section B
2 years and
twenty days
150,911,915
565,919,681 15,091,192 15,091,192
Section C
1 year, five
months and
thirteen
days.
173,448,297
457,903,504
17,344,830
17,344,830
XIV
2009/2010 Mukura –
Ngora (10.00
Km)
1 year, two
months and
twenty days
203,581,400 422,431,405 20,358,140 20,358,140
2010/2011 Mukongoro –
Kamaca –
Bukedea
(13.60 Km)
1 month 469,121,952 70,368,293 46,912,195 46,912,195
Sub total 4 9 1,141,825,304 1,913,270,051 114,182,531 114,182,531
Masindi 2007/2008 Bullima –
Byebega
1 year and 7
months
300,489,493 863,907,292 30,048,949 30,048,949
2008/2009 Kigumba –
Apodorwa –
Mboira Road
Road works
abandoned
50,000,000 0 0 0
2009/2010 Ibaralibi –
Alimongonza
Road
7 months 245,320,050 257,586,053 24,532,005 24,532,005
2010/2011 Kitamba –
Kijunjubwa
Road
3 months 200,000,000 90,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000
Sub total 4 22 795,809,543 1,211,493,345 74,580,954 74,580,954
Mukono 2007/2008 Bugereka –
Nakyeke –
Kasawo
(21.00 KM)
Road works
not
implemente
d
0 0 0 0
2008/2009 Bugereka –
Nakyeke –
Kasawo
(21.00 KM)
3 months 149,977,740 67,489,983 14,997,774 14,997,774
2009/2010 Wagala –
Najjembe
9 months 399,834,250 539,776,238 39,983,425 39,983,425
2010/2011
Kigombya –
Seeta –
Sezibwa
3 months
149,998,000
67,499,100 14,999,800 14,999,800
XV
(15K.00M)
Sub total 3 5 549,832,250 674,765,321 69,980,999 69,980,999
Wakiso 2007/2008 Namasuba -
Ndejje –
Kitiko(8.20K
M)
3 months 84,690,524 38,110,736 8,469,052 8,469,052
2009/2010 Kikondo –
Sokolo –
Kasanje
(8.50KM)
7 months 154,990,000 162,739,500 15,499,000 15,499,000
2010/2011 Nsangi –
Buloba(4
.70KM)
Buloba –
Kakiri
(13.90K
M)
1 months 380,287,050 57,043,058 38,028,705 38,028,705
Sub total 3 3 619,967,574 257,893,294 61,996,757 61,996,757
Grand
Total
3,168,711,204 4,073,614,591 326,868,894 326,868,894
XVI
Appendix VI
District road equipment inventory and status
District Road Equipment as per National Policy
HOIMA KUMI MASIND
I
MUKONO WAKIS
O
1 Grader 0 - 1 Old and
grounded
since
June
2010
1 Old and
grounded
since
2010
2 1 Grounded
since 2009
1 In running
condition
2 Running
3 Dump Trucks 2
Running 2 One
currently
running
One old
and
grounded
since
2002/3
FY
3 3
grounded
since
2005
2 All in running
condition
1 Running
1 Wheel Loader 0 0 - 1 Old and
grounded
since
2009
1 Old and
grounded
since
2007conditio
n
0
1 Excavator 1 Running 1 Old and
grounded
since
June
2010
0 - 0 - 1 Running
1Tractor 1 Old and
grounde
d since
January,
2010
0 - 2 Old and
grounded
2 Old and
grounded
0
XVII
1 Motor roller 1 Old and
grounde
d
1 Old and
grounded
since FY
2002/3
1 Old and
grounded
since
2009
1 Old and
grounded
since 2007
1 Running
1 Motor Bowser 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 Running 1 Running
1 Pick-up 0 - 2 1
Running
1
grounded
since
January
2011
0 - 1 Grounded 2 Running
2 Motorcycles 0 - 4 New 2 OK 2 All running 3 Running
1 Pedestrian roller
0 - 0 - 2 Broken
down
since
2008
0 - 0
1 Concrete Mixer 0 - 1 Old but
operation
al
0 - 0 - 0
1 Bulldozer 0 - 0 1 Old and
grounded
since
2009
1 Old and
grounded
since 2005
0
15 5
12 13 13 11
XVIII
Appendix VII
District staffing levels in the PDU and Engineering Departments
DISTRICT PROCUREMENT AND
DISPOSAL UNIT (PDU)
VARIANCE ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT
VARIANCE
REQUIRED
STAFF
EXISTING
STAFF
REQUIRED
STAFF
EXISTING
STAFF
Hoima One Senior
Procurement
Officer
0 1 One District
Engineer
1 0
One
Procurement
Officer
1 0 One
Supervisor of
Works
(Roads)
1 0
One
Assistant
Procurement
Officers
1 0 One Senior
Asst.
Engineering
Officer
(Mechanics)
0 1
Two Road
Inspectors
1 1
District
Total
3 2 1 (33%) 5 3 2 (40%)
Kumi One Senior
Procurement
Officer
0 1 One District
Engineer
0 1
One
Procurement
Officer
1 0 One
Supervisor of
Works
(Roads)
1 0
One
Assistant
Procurement
Officers
1 0 One Senior
Asst.
Engineering
Officer
(Mechanics)
0 1
XIX
Two Road
Inspectors
2 0
District
Total
3 2 1(33%) 5 3 2 (40%)
Masindi One Senior
Procurement
Officer
1 0 One District
Engineer
1 0
One
Procurement
Officer
0 1 One
Supervisor of
Works
(Roads)
1 0
One
Assistant
Procurement
Officers
1 0 One Senior
Asst.
Engineering
Officer
(Mechanics)
1 0
Two Road
Inspectors
2 0
District
Total
3 2 1 (33%0 5 5 0 (0%)
Mukono One Senior
Procurement
Officer
1 0 One District
Engineer
1 0
One
Procurement
Officer
1 0 One
Supervisor of
Works
(Roads)
1 0
One
Assistant
Procurement
Officers
1 0 One Senior
Asst.
Engineering
Officer
(Mechanics)
0 1
Two Road
Inspectors
2 0
District
Total
3 3 0 (0%) 5 4 1 (20%)
XX
Wakiso One Senior
Procurement
Officer
0 1 One District
Engineer
0 1
One
Procurement
Officer
1 0 One
Supervisor of
Works
(Roads)
1 0
One
Assistant
Procurement
Officers
1 0 One Senior
Asst.
Engineering
Officer
(Mechanics)
0 1
Two Road
Inspectors
2 0
District
Total
3 2 1 (33%) 5 3 2 (40%)
XXI
Appendix VIII
Time taken by mechanical workshops to repair district road equipment (At the
time of Inspection)
a) Bugembe Mechanical Workshop
S/NO DISTRICT/
INSTITUTION
TYPE OF EQUIPMENT DATE
BROUGHT IN
TIME OF
INSPECTION
TIME SPENT
(MONTHS)
1 Kabairamaido Grader: LG0002-46 29/7/09 13/12/11 28
2 Mpigi Grader: LG0002-34 16/6/11 13/12/11 5
3 Luwero Wheel Loader LG0040-27 27/11/08 13/12/11 36
4 Nakasongola Trascavator: LG0009-37 22/7/11 13/12/11 4
5 Mayunge Grader 4/4/11 13/12/11 8
Average Time 16
b) Mbarara Mechanical Workshop
S/NO DISTRICT/
INSTITUTION
TYPE OF EQUIPMENT DATE
BROUGHT IN
TIME OF
INSPECTION
TIME SPENT
(MONTHS)
1 Rakai Grader: LG0029-41 8/2/11 16/12/11 10
2 Kisoro Dumper: LG0013-21 5/2/10 16/12/11 22
3 Kisoro Tractor: LG0020-21 4/2/10 16/12/11 22
4 Mbarara Bull Dozer: UA 1219 3/11/08 16/12/11 37
5 Mbarara Motorized Roller: 17/6/10 16/12/11 18
6 Masaka Bull Dozer: LG0005-28 25/6/09 16/12/11 29
7 Kabarole Pneumatic Roller Since 2008 16/12/11 36
8 Mbarara Dumper: LG 0147-31 24/2/10 16/12/11 9
9 State House Bull Dozer: UW 1066 7/7/11 16/12/11 5
10 Rakai Back Hoe 3/6/10 16/12/11 18
XXII
11 Mbarara Dumper: LG00148-31 28/7/10 16/12/11 17
12 Masaka Grader: LG0106- 28 23/11/11 16/12/11 1
13 Rukungiri Wheel Loader: LG 0006-42 7/7/11 16/12/11 5
14 Sembabule Tipper Truck: LG 0042-43 20/9/09 16/12/11 26
15 Kisoro Dumper: LG0014-21 28/3/11 16/12/11 8
16 Kanungu Dumper: LG0013-42 22/6/10 16/12/11 17
17 Bushenyi Dumper: LG0010-42 20/5/11 16/12/11 6
18 Insingiro Nissan Double Cabin 3/5/11 16/12/11 7
Average
Time
16