Audit Rpt - Kyambogo University For FY 2013-2014

Transcription

PUBLIC PROCUREMENT AND DISPOSAL OF PUBLIC ASSETS AUTHORITY
PROCUREMENT AND DISPOSAL AUDIT REPORT OF KYAMBOGO UNIVERSITY
FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2013/2014
DECEMBER 2014
Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 4
1.1 THE AUDITEE ........................................................................................................ 4
1.2 PPDA MANDATE ................................................................................................... 6
1.5 SCOPE OF AUDIT................................................................................................... 6
1.7 AUDIT METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................... 7
1.8 SAMPLING .............................................................................................................. 7
1.9 DATA COLLECTION ............................................................................................. 7
1.10 REPORTING ............................................................................................................ 8
CHAPTER TWO: PERFORMANCE OF THE ENTITY AND DETAILED FINDINGS 9
2.1 PERFORMANCE OF THE ENTITY ....................................................................... 9
2.2 DETAILED FINDINGS ......................................................................................... 12
CHAPTER THREE: AUDIT CONCLUSION AND ACTION PLAN ........................... 27
3.1 AUDIT CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 27
3.2 ACTION PLAN ...................................................................................................... 27
APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RATING OF INDIVIDUAL
CONTRACTS CASE BY CASE ..................................................................................... 32
APPENDIX B: ENTITY BUDGET AND PERFORMANCE FOR THE FY 2013/201455
APPENDIX C: RISK RATING CRITERIA ................................................................... 56
APPENDIX D: SAMPLE LIST FOR FY 2013/14.......................................................... 58
Procurement and Disposal Audit of KYU for the financial year 2013/2014
2
ACRONYMS
Ag
AO
Asst
CC
Dr
DVC
EC
Eng.
GOU
GRN
ICT
KYU
LPO
MOFPED
PDE
PDU
PO
PPDA
PS/ST
RDB
RFQ
SBD
SPO
UGX
US
USD
VC
WRKS
-
Acting
Accounting Officer
Assistant
Contracts Committee
Doctor
Deputy Vice Chancellor
Evaluation Committee
Engineer
Government of Uganda
Goods Received Note
Information and Communications Technology
Kyambogo University
Local Purchase Order
Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development
Procuring and Disposing Entity
Procurement and Disposal Unit
Procurement Officer
Permanent Secretary/Secretary to Treasury
Restricted Domestic Bidding.
Request for Quotations
Standard Bidding Document
Senior Procurement Officer
Uganda Shillings
University Secretary
United States Dollar
Vice Chancellor
Works
3
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1
The Auditee
Kyambogo University (KYU) is a public university established by the Universities and
Other Tertiary Institutions Act 2001 and the Universities and Other Tertiary
institutions’ (Establishment of Kyambogo University) instruments of 2003. It was
formed from a merger of the former Uganda Polytechnic Kyambogo (UPK), the
Institute of Teacher Education, Kyambogo (ITEK), and the Uganda National Institute of
Special Education (UNISE).
1.1.1 Accounting Officer
Section 26 of the PPDA Act 2003 gives the Accounting Officer the overall
responsibility for the successful execution of procurement, disposal and contract
management in the Procuring and Disposing Entity. The University Secretary
Kyambogo University, Mr. Sam S. Akorimo is designated as the Accounting Officer
and was the head of the Institution during the Financial Year 2013-14.
1.1.2 Contracts Committee
The PS/ST of Ministry of Finance, Planning & Economic Development approved the
following members of the Contracts Committee who also acted during the period under
review:
No. Name
Position
and Committee
Date
of
Department
Responsibility appointment
1
Dr. Peter W. Obanda
Lecturer
Chairperson
8thApril 2013
2
Mrs. Stella Muhereza
Senior
Assistant Secretary
8thApril 2013
Secretary
3
Ms. Mildred
Deputy
Dean
of Member
8thApril 2013
Tibananuka
Students
4
Dr. Michael Kyakula
Head of Civil Eng, Member
8thApril 2013
Dept
5
Mr.
Robert
M. Senior Legal Officer
Member
8thApril 2013
Muwanguzi
1.1.3 Composition of the Procurement & Disposal Unit
SN Names
Position
Date
of
Appointment
1.
Richard
SPO
01/03/2010
Muhanguzi
2.
Jakuma Xavier PO
04/12/2013
Nispro
3.
Nge’cha
Maureen
Pamela
Assistant
PO
25/10/2013
Qualifications
MCIPS , MBA Marketing
BCOM, UDBS
Master
Of
Science
In
Procurement and Supply Chain
Management,
Bachelor
of
Procurement
and
Logistics
Management, Uganda Diploma
In Business Studies (UDBS)
MBA, MCIPS ,
BCOM Accounting Makerere
University
Diploma in Accounting.
4
SN
Names
Position
4.
Mugambwa
Brian
Angela
Nadongo
Procurement
Assistant
Procurement
Assistant
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Muhumuza
Benard
Echabu
Lawrence
Lydia Bukenya
Procurement
Assistant
Procurement
Assistant
Procurement
Assistant
Anguzu Ronald Procurement
Assistant
Date
of Qualifications
Appointment
1/06/2010
Master student in proc. Degree
in proc.
06/10/2006
Msc. Accounting and Finance,
NEVI & B Certificate in Supply
Chain management, BBA, DBA
22/1/2013
Diploma in Proc. And logistics
management KYU
22/1/2013
management KYU
22/1/2013
management KYU
22/1/2013
management KYU
1.1.4 Structure of the Entity
The Entity comprises Non-Teaching Departments and Faculties which are further subdivided into departments.
Faculties
i)
Faculty of Arts;
ii)
Faculty of Education;
iii) Faculty of Engineering;
iv)
Faculty of Science;
v)
Distance Education;
vi)
Faculty of Vocational Studies;
vii) School of Management & Entrepreneurship;
viii) Special Needs Studies
Non-Teaching Departments
i)
Library;
ii)
Vice Chancellor’s Office;
iii) DVC (AA);
iv)
DVC (F&A);
v)
PRO’s Office;
vi)
Directorate of Planning & Development;
vii) Human Resource;
viii) Internal Audit;
ix)
University Secretary;
x)
Security;
xi)
Legal Section;
xii) University farm;
xiii) PDU;
xiv) ICT/Web Development Department;
xv) Dean of Students;
xvi) Guidance and Counselling;
xvii) Finance;
xviii) Estates;
xix) Academic Registrar’s office;
5
xx)
xxi)
xxii)
xxiii)
Admissions Division;
Exam division;
PTC section; and
Medical centre
1.2
PPDA Mandate
PPDA is mandated under Section 7 (j) of the PPDA Act 2003 and Regulations 2003 to
institute procurement and disposal audits in the Entities. This Mandate is executed in
line with the principles and objectives below.
1.3
Basic Public Procurement and Disposal Principles
The basic principles of procurement system are enshrined in Sections 44 to 47 of the
PPDA Act 2003 and are highlighted below.
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
1.4
To ensure non-discrimination in public procurement.
To ensure all procurements and disposals are conducted in a manner that
promotes transparency, accountability and fairness.
To ensure that all procurements and disposals are conducted in a manner to
achieve competition and value for money; and
To ensure there is confidentiality in the conduct of procurement and disposals.
Specific audit objectives
The specific objectives of the audit of Kyambogo University were to:(i) Assess compliance with provisions in the PPDA Act and Regulations; and
ascertain that the benefits to the intended beneficiaries were achieved.
(ii) Review the Institutional Framework in the Entity.
(iii) Assess the level of procurement reporting, records management and planning in
the Entity.
(iv) Assess the level of compliance in the conduct of procurement and disposal
activities.
(v) Assess efficiency, economy and effectiveness of the procurement function in the
Entity.
1.5
Scope of audit
The scope of the audit encompassed a review of the Entity’s procurement management
practices and system of procurement internal controls and their compliance with
established procurement procedures as laid out in the PPDA Act and Regulations. More
specifically, the scope included an examination of the Entity’s compliance with the
provisions of the PPDA Act and Regulations ranging from procurement planning and
initiation, bidding, evaluation, awarding of contracts, contract administration and
performance.
The audit examined the procurement structures and control framework in place to
monitor procurement and contracting activities within the Entity. A review of the roles
undertaken by personnel directly involved in procurement and contracting activities
was also undertaken.
6
1.6
Limitation of scope
Some of the procurement action files had incomplete records. Contract management
records like payments, monitoring reports and delivery documents, invoices and goods
received notes were missing in most files which made the audit trail difficult.
1.7
Audit Methodology
The audit was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the PPDA Act 2003,
PPDA Regulations 2003 and 2014 and the Procurement Audit Manual of PPDA.
1.8
Sampling
The Entity procured 762 contracts with a total value of UGX 4,777,894,840 for the
period under review. A sample of 40 contracts was selected and examined in detail. The
sample was based on a combination of statistical and judgemental sampling
methodology.
Table 6: The sample in relation to the population was as follows:
Method
of Population
Procurement
Value
Open Bidding
Restricted
Bidding
Sample % No
No.
6
21
873,512,006
658,110,006
75
9
7
78
for 1,857,998,729
1,015,955,393
55
135
20
15
Direct
Procurement
318,316,373
244,924,735
77
20
7
35
Micro
Procurement
408,139,452
0
0
570
0
0
0
0
4,777,894,840 3,219,422,334
0
67
0
762
0
40
0
5
Request
Quotations
Disposal
Total
1.9
1,319,928,280
Sample
%Value Popn
Value
No.
(UGX.)
1,300,432,200
99
28
Data Collection
The following data collection methods were used to gather evidence:-
1.9.1 Document Review
The under listed documents were reviewed to obtain information relating to Kyambogo
University procurement and disposal activities:
i. Financial Statements and Budget for FY 2013/14;
ii. Procurement plan and Work plans for FY 2013/14;
iii. Contracts Committee Minutes;
iv. Procurement action files for the 40 selected procurements; and
v. Pre qualification list.
7
1.9.2 Field Inspections
The team verified seven (7) out of nine (9) of the verifiable procurements to ascertain
progress and quality of work and evidence of delivery.
1.9.3 Interviews and Meetings
The Authority held an audit commencement meeting (entry meeting) on 14th July 2014
to officially launch the audit exercise and an exit meeting on 23rd September 2014. The
exercise conclusion involved the conduct of an exit meeting and issuance of a report
highlighting gaps identified in the course of the audit and giving appropriate
recommendations.
1.10 Reporting
Reporting is in a format which identifies the findings by exception, the level of risk and
the recommendations. The procurements are rated in four categories according to the
weakness identified namely High Risk, Medium Risk, Low Risk and Satisfactory.
8
CHAPTER TWO: PERFORMANCE OF THE ENTITY AND DETAILED FINDINGS
2.1 Performance of the Entity
The audit of procurement and disposal activities of Kyambogo University (KYU) was
conducted by the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (PPDA) in
accordance with Section 7 (j) of the PPDA Act, 2003.
The overall audit objective was to review the entire procurement and disposal system of KYU
to obtain assurance that procurement and disposal activities and processes for the financial
year ended June 2014 were administered with due diligence and were compliant with the
public procurement and disposal policies and procedures as laid out in the PPDA Act and
Regulations. The audit was carried out in July 2014. This is the third audit of the Entity. The
first was for FY 2006/07, the second was for FY 2012/2013 and the third is for FY
2013/2014.
For the period under review the Entity had an expenditure budget of UGX 21,541,073,363.
The expenditure on procurement activities during the financial year was UGX
4,777,894,840.
A sample of 40 procurement contracts was selected and examined in detail. The sample was
based on a combination of statistical and judgmental sampling methodology. The sample in
relation to the population was as follows:Table 1: Population and Sample for FY 2013/2014
Method
Procurement
of Population
Value
Open Bidding
1,319,928,280
Restricted Bidding
873,512,006
Request
for 1,857,998,729
Quotations
Direct Procurement
318,316,373
Micro Procurement
Disposal
Total
408,139,452
0
4,777,894,840
Sample Value %Value
(UGX.)
1,300,432,200
99
658,110,006
75
1,015,955,393
55
Popn
No.
Sample % No
No.
28
9
135
6
7
20
21
78
15
244,924,735
77
20
7
35
0
0
3,219,422,334
0
0
67
570
0
762
0
0
40
0
0
5
Table 2: Summary of Performance of KYU FY 2013/2014
2013/2014 Audit
Risk
Category
No
% No
Value UGX:
%Value
2012/2013
%
% No
Value
High
Medium
Low
Satisfactory
28 70.0% 2,196,712,895
68.2%
30.0% 50.80%
11 27.5%
977,573,438
30.4%
57.5% 41.00%
1
2.5%
45,136,000
1.4%
10.0%
6.90%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
2.5%
1.30%
40 100% 3,219,422,334
100.00% 100.0% 100.0%
TOTAL
Graphical Representation of Risk Rating for Procurements of KYU for FY 2013/2014
9
Figure 1: Risk Rating by number
Figure 2: Risk Rating by value
Table 3: Overall performance of KYU for the 40 sampled procurements
68.2%
0.6
Medium
30.4%
0.3
9.11
Low
1.4%
0.1
Satisfactory
0.0%
100.00%
Total
Weighted
score by
No.
40.94 50.19/60 70.0%
x 100
0.6
42.0 50.5/60
x 100
83.65% 27.5%
0.3
8.25 84.17%
0.14
2.5%
0.1
0.25
0
0.00
0.0%
0
0.00
1
50.19
100%
1
50.5
Performance
%No.
Weights
High
Total
Total
Weighted
score by
Value
Performance
%Value
Weights
Risk
Rating
Average weighted performance
= (83.65%+84.17%)/2
= 83.91%
The overall performance of the Entity was highly unsatisfactory with an overall weighted
average of 83.91% of sampled contracts.
Table 4: High Risk Contracts by Method of Procurement
Method of
Procurement
Open Domestic
Open International
Restricted Bidding
Request for
Quotations
Sample
No.
6
0
7
20
HR Cases
No
%
5
83%
0
2
29%
14
70%
Sample Value
1,300,432,200
658,110,006
1,015,955,393
High Risk Cases
Value
%
1,162,672,200
89.41%
0.00%
80,707,000
12.26%
708,408,960
69.73%
10
Direct Procurement
Micro Procurement
Disposal
Total
7
0
0
40
7
0
0
28
100%
0%
0%
70%
244,924,735
3,219,422,334
244,924,735
2,196,712,895
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
68.23%
Table 5: Past and Present Performance of the Entity
2013/2014 audit
Risk Category
% No
2012/2013 audit
%Value
% No
% Value
High
70.0%
68.2%
30.0%
50.80%
Medium
27.5%
30.4%
57.5%
41.00%
2.5%
1.4%
10.0%
6.90%
0.0%
100.00%
0.0%
100.00%
2.5%
100.0%
1.30%
100.0%
Low
Satisfactory
TOTAL
Figure 3: Bar graph showing the Entity’s performance over the last two audits
The performance of the Entity for FY 2013/2014 has declined. Of the forty (40) procurement
files reviewed by value, 68.2% were rated as High Risk, 30.4% were Medium Risk, 1.4% was
Low Risk and 0% were Satisfactory. In comparison with the performance observed in the
previous audit of 2012/13, the value of the high and medium risk cases increased from 91%
in the previous audit to 98.6% in the current audit. A decrease was also registered in the low
and satisfactory cases from 8.2% in the previous audit to 1.4% in the current audit.
Underlying reasons for the highly unsatisfactory performance:





Carrying out procurements outside the Entity’s procurement plan i.e. Computers for
e-kampus project, renovation at Mackay house No. 13.
Lack of records of payments to providers on the action file.
Alteration/forging of documents.
Poor record keeping particularly contract management records.
Failure to post procurement notices on the tender portal.
11





Use of firms which were not prequalified by the Entity for provision of certain
supplies, works and services.
Carrying out evaluation with committee members who were not approved by the
Contracts Committee.
Failure to submit monthly reports to the Authority.
Failure to nominate and appoint contract managers.
Poor estimation and failure to update the procurement plan which led to reduction in
quantities of requirements after the evaluation process.
2.2 Detailed Findings
During the audit, a sample of forty (40) procurement action files for goods, works and
services were reviewed to assess the level of compliance in conducting procurement and also
assess efficiency, economy and effectiveness of the procurement function in the Entity.
2.2.1 Procurement Planning
The audit revealed that the Entity’s consolidated procurement plan for FY 2013/2014 had
only 32 broad items e.g. roads and bridges, residential buildings and not explicitly stating the
actual requirement. For example KU/WRKS/2013-2014/00530 UGX 40,937,551 Filling of
Potholes in the University, UNEB-security office Road, NCHE signpost-lagoon (Harlow
Road), Carvers Crescent, Fischer Road, Engineers Road, Sempala road and Teachers road
were not explicitly stated in the plan.
Implication
This resulted into repeat purchases which hinder the Entity’s bargaining power ultimately
leading to loss of value for money.
Management Response
Management noted this with concern and promised to address the recommendation and
specify the projects at the planning stage.
Recommendation
The Authority noted the response and recommends that the Head Procurement and Disposal
Unit should ensure that all departmental work plans are aggregated into a consolidated
procurement plan in accordance with Section 58 (2) of the PPDA Act 2003.
2.2.2 Initiation of procurement process
Delays at initiation
It was noted that in eleven (11) cases worth UGX 410,041,185, there were delays between
initiation and confirmation of funding by the Accounting Officer. The worst case was
KU/SRVCS/2013-14/01098, Installation, Configuration and Training on Atomic Absorption
Spectrophotometer in Chemistry Department worth UGX 31,789,300 that took 10 months i.e.
initiation was done on 28th May 2013 and confirmation of funding was done on 17th March
2014.
Poor estimation of requirements
The audit also noted that in three (3) cases worth UGX 138,529,060, there was poor
estimation of the requirements during initiation which led to user departments’ reduction of
quantities after the evaluation process so as to match the funds that were available.
12
Retrospective approvals
It was noted that eight (8) cases worth UGX 1,514,161,564 had instances where the approval
to procure was done retrospectively by the University Bursar after confirmation of funding by
the Accounting Officer.
Incomplete information on approval of PP form
The audit also noted that, in fourteen (14) sampled procurements worth UGX 2,152,830,959,
the Accounting Officer would confirm funding with only a signature but no name and the
same applied to the approval to procure made by the University Bursar. It was therefore not
possible to tell whether the signatures were those of the authorised officers.
Implication
 Delays between initiation and confirmation of funding cause inefficiency in the
procurement function.
 Failure to generate realistic estimates during the planning phase and at initiation leads to
budget overruns and accumulation of domestic arrears.
 Retrospective approvals to procure may result into creation of domestic arrears.
 Failure to indicate a name on the PP form at initiation affects transparency and
accountability.
Management Response
 Delays were caused by administrative consultations.
 User departments to be assisted in making estimations.
 Retrospective approvals were noted.
 Failure of officers to indicate their names against signatures was also noted
Recommendations
The Authority noted the responses and recommends that:
 The Accounting Officer should ensure that the delays in procurement at the various stages
are addressed to ensure efficiency.
 The Accounting Officer should ensure that User Departments make realistic cost
estimates as per Regulation 3(2) (a) of the PPDA (Rules and Methods for Procurement of
Supplies, Works and Non-consultancy Services) Regulations, 2014.
 The Accounting Officer should ensure that procurement requirements are initiated
according to Regulation 3 (5) of the PPDA (Rules and Methods for Procurement of
Works, Supplies and Non-consultancy Services) Regulations, 2014.
2.2.3 Bidding
Use of non-pre-qualified firms
The audit noted that in six (6) cases worth UGX 197,942,422, some firms that had not been
pre-qualified by KYU under some of the categories of services/goods/works had been invited
by the Entity to bid while leaving out other prequalified suppliers contrary to Regulation 142
of the PPDA Regulations 2003. An example is KU/SUPLS/2013-14/000851, supply of
Computers and Laptops for the University Library and University Bursar worth UGX
43,048,000, M/s Olitech International Ltd was not on the pre-qualified list & also not on the
shortlist but was issued with a solicitation document.
Implication
This affects transparency in the procurement process and fairness to other pre-qualified
service providers and deters competition.
13
Management Response
An additional prequalification list was obtained by the Entity through a special open bidding
process and providers were shortlisted basing on the nature of items e.g. perishables like
foodstuffs, roots tubers and starch.
Recommendation
The Authority noted that the additional prequalification list provided by the Entity did not
include all the queried firms and recommends that the Accounting Officer should caution in
writing the HPDU for failure to use prequalified firms as required by Regulation 43(3) of the
PPDA (Rules and methods for procurement of supplies, works and non-consultancy services)
Regulations, 2014 and failure to indicate reasons as to why non prequalified firms were used
when there were prequalified firms.
Lack of evidence of invitation of shortlisted providers
The audit noted that in twelve (12) cases worth UGX 611,882,659, bidders were shortlisted
but there was no evidence to prove that they received the invitation to bid. Furthermore, the
audit noted instances where three or four service providers were shortlisted and only one or
two responded. Without proof of receipt of invitation, the audit could not ascertain whether
all bidders had been invited. Examples of such cases are;
i.
KU/SRVCS/2013-2014/01190. Printing, supply and delivery of answer booklets for Academic
Year 2013/2014 semester II worth UGX 58,800,000
ii.
KU/SRVCS/2013-14/01098. Installation, Configuration and Training on Atomic Absorption
Spectrophotometer in Chemistry Department worth UGX 31,789,300.
iii.
KU/SUPLS/2013-14/000851. Supply of Computers and laptops for the University Library and
University Bursar worth UGX 43,048,000.
iv.
KU/SPLS/2013-2014/00703. Supply and Delivery of Textbooks for Mechanical &
Production Engineering Department worth UGX 60,971,360.
v.
KU/SUPLS/2013-2014/00802 Supply of Drugs for Medical Centre worth UGX
42,398,687.
Implication
This undermines the principles of fairness and competition in the procurement process and
affects the achievement of value for money.
Management Response
Noted and the recommendation shall be addressed.
Recommendations
The Authority noted the response and recommends that:
 The Head Procurement and Disposal Unit should ensure that there is evidence of
invitation of bidders on the procurement action files such as copies acknowledged by the
bidders and emails sent out to the bidders.
 The Head Procurement and Disposal Unit should include sufficient bidders on the
shortlist to promote real and effective competition.
 The Accounting Officer should investigate the possible causes of the poor response to
bid invitation.
Approvals made by the Contracts Committee
The Chairman Contracts Committee was delegated by the Accounting Officer on PP Form
212 to approve methods of procurement, evaluation committee members and shortlists of
14
providers and solicitation documents on behalf of the Contracts Committee. However, when
approving the above, the PP Form 209 (Contracts Committee decision) did not indicate what
had been approved for each procurement.
Implication
In the event that submissions made to the Contracts Committee are misplaced, it may not be
possible to conclusively confirm approvals made on behalf of the Contracts Committee by
the Chairman Contracts Committee.
Management Response
Noted and recommendation shall be addressed.
Recommendation
The Authority noted the response and recommends that the Chairman Contracts Committee
should ensure that all approvals made are indicated on the PP Form 209 in accordance with
Section 28 of the PPDA Act 2003.
Failure to issue solicitation documents
The audit revealed that solicitation documents were not issued for six (6) direct procurements
worth UGX 225,330,691.8.
Implication
This affects transparency and accountability in the procurement function.
Management Response
Recommendation
Unit should ensure that the solicitation documents are issued when direct procurement is used
in accordance with Regulation 47 (1) (b) of the PPDA (Rules and methods for procurement
of supplies, works and non-consultancy services) Regulations, 2014.
2.2.4 Evaluation of bids
It was noted during the audit that some members of the evaluation committee had not been
approved by the Contracts Committee. For example Renovation works to the building of
lands & architectural studies at UGX 36,567,905 KYU/WRKS/2011-2012/00610 –Dr.
Michael Kyakula & Dr. Rosemary Nabadda were not approved by the CC to participate in
evaluation.
The audit revealed that there were instances where the evaluation committee changed the
evaluation criteria to include criteria which had not been indicated in the solicitation
document. For example; KU/Srvcs/2013-2014/00368 Internal networking Materials
University Library Centre at UGX 47,172,000, warranty of one year was added to the criteria
during evaluation.
The audit also revealed that evaluation was not conducted when the method of procurement
was direct method.
15
Implications
 Unfairness during evaluation leads to complaints which cause delays in the procurement
process.

Forgery of documents is an indicator that the Entity indulges in unethical practises.
Management Response
 Evaluation committee was approved by the Contracts Committee.
 The finding on changing of evaluation criteria was noted and recommendation shall be
addressed.
Recommendations
The Authority noted that the additional evidence provided as part of the response to the
Management letter to prove nomination and approval of Dr. Micheal Kyakula to participate
in the evaluation process included an altered PP Form 40 on the Membership of Evaluation
Committee to include Dr. Micheal Kyakula who was not initially on the Form. (Refer to
Annex 1). The Authority therefore recommends as follows:
 The Head Procurement and Disposal Unit should ensure that all members of the
evaluation committee are approved by the Contracts Committee in accordance with
Section 28 (1) (b) of the PPDA Act 2003.
 The Head Procurement and Disposal Unit should ensure that the evaluation committee
members adhere to the criteria set out in the solicitation document in accordance with
Regulation 7 (2) of the PPDA (Evaluation) Regulations 2014.
 The Accounting Officer should investigate, identify and take appropriate disciplinary
action against Officers of the Entity responsible for the unethical conduct i.e. falsification
of documents.
2.2.5 Contracts Award and Placement
Notice of best evaluated bidder
The audit revealed that there was no evidence on file of receipt of the notice of best evaluated
bidder by the unsuccessful bidders. Furthermore, there were five (5) cases worth UGX
206,276,193 where the reason for being unsuccessful was not stated on the Notice of Best
Evaluated Bidder.
Implication
Failure to notify unsuccessful bidders denies them the right to appeal the decision of award in
case they are aggrieved.
Management Response
Recommendation
Unit should ensure that all unsuccessful bidders receive a copy of the notice of best evaluated
bidder in accordance with Regulation 4 (1) (a) of the PPDA (Contracts) Regulations 2014
which clearly indicate the reasons for their failure.
Changes in the Special Conditions of Contract
The audit revealed that in some cases special conditions in the signed contract were different
from the special conditions in the solicitation document contrary to Regulation 132 (2) of the
16
PPDA Regulations 2003 and in one case, special conditions were not harmonised with some
of the requirements of the user department. Examples of such cases are: KU/Srvcs/13-14/00368 Internal networking Materials University Library Centre worth
UGX 47,172,000. The special conditions of contract in the solicitation document did not
include GCC 28.3 & 28.5 in the contract which stated warranty of 1 year & period within
which the provider would repair or replace defective supplies-two months respectively.
 KU/WRKS/2013-2014/000610 Renovation works to the building of lands & architectural
studies worth UGX 36,567,905. GCC 2.3 in the contract stated the type of contract as
Renovation works to the Building of Lands & Architectural Studies while in the special
conditions of contract in the solicitation document stated lump sum contract. GCC 21.1
in the contract stated that site possession would be after the site handover while the
special conditions of contract in the solicitation document stated that site possession
would be on signing the contract. The special conditions of contract in the solicitation
document stated that payment would be within 30 days after receipt of invoice, payment
certificate and certificate of completion while on the other hand; the special conditions of
contract in the signed contract were silent.
 KYU/Supls/13-14/00595 Materials for in house Training for Dept of Food Processing
Technology Sem-II/13-14 worth UGX 18,065,000. The Special Conditions of Contract
(GCC 12.1) stated that delivery was to be within 7 working days from date of purchase
order. However, in a letter on file dated 3rd October 2013 from the Ag. Head of
Department it was indicated that highly perishable materials would have to be delivered
when the session was being conducted. There was no evidence of harmonization of the
Special Conditions of Contract with this requirement.
Implication
This underscores transparency of the procurement function and may result into legal issues.
Management Response
Noted and recommendation shall be addressed
Recommendation
Unit should ensure before signing a contract that the special conditions in the solicitation
document are similar to those in the final contract.
2.2.6 Contract Implementation and Management
The audit revealed that contrary to Regulation 259 of the PPDA Regulations 2013, there were
thirty four (34) cases worth UGX 2,502,217,556 where contract managers were not appointed
and in other cases where a contract management committee was appointed, there was no
evidence of reports prepared. Some files had a template of a contract implementation plan but
it had not been completed. Examples of cases which lacked evidence of appointment of a
contract manager are listed below: KYU/SUPLS/13/14/01520. Supply of materials for Renovation and plumbing of Extension Block
of Apollo House worth UGX 45,136,000.

KU/SUPLS/2013-2014/00349. Supply and Delivery of Teaching Materials for
Department for Art and Industrial Design – Day Programme worth UGX 46,254,000.

KU/SPLS/2013-2014/00191/00192. Supply and Delivery of Teaching Materials for
Departments of Food Processing Technology and Biological Sciences for Semester 1 –
2013/2014 worth UGX 19,773,500.
17
All the files reviewed did not have evidence of payments made to providers. At the time
of audit, the entity’s Accounts’ department provided evidence of payment to providers for
only 10 procurements out of a sample of 40.
Some contractors failed to implement the contracts within the stipulated time. An
example is:
KYU/WRKS/2013-2014/00610 Renovation works to the building of lands and
architectural studies worth UGX 36,567,905. The contract was signed on 18th February
2013 and the site was handed over on 21st June 2013 (according to the contract works
were expected to be complete within 8 weeks from the date of site handover). The
contractor M/s Malcom Investments Ltd in their letter of 5th August 2013 indicated that
they had not started works mainly because they had many commitments and that the
Entity had outstanding payments from a previous contract. In their meeting of 14th May
2014 the CC approved revision of the contract to commence 2nd June 2014 and at the time
of the audit works were on going.
Some variations in the contracts were not approved by the contracts committee. For
example KU/WRKS/2013-2014/00530 filling of potholes in the university where extra
works were done at UGX 5,694,258 by M/s Dewans Services Ltd without approval from
the Contracts Committee.
Implication
 Failure and delay to supervise contracts could lead to sub-standard deliverables.
 If defects are not quickly rectified they may cause further damage to the roads and failure
to achieve value for money.
 Reduced interest and participation by bidders due to the Entity’s failure to meet its
payment obligations within the stipulated time frame of 30 days.
Management Response
Recommendations
The Authority noted the response and recommends as follows:
 The Accounting Officer should ensure that Heads of User Departments nominate contract
managers and ensure preparation of contract implementation plans as per Regulation
52(1) and 51(3) of the PPDA (Contracts) Regulations, 2014.
 The Accounting Officer and User Departments should ensure satisfactory rectification of
all defects on works contracts prior to expiry of defects liability period and authorisation
to release retention monies.
 The Accounting Officer should ensure timely payment of providers within 30 days of
delivery/completion as per Regulation 49 (3) of the PPDA (Contracts) Regulations, 2014.
 The Accounting Officer should ensure that where contractors fail to meet the terms and
conditions of the contract, the contract is terminated in accordance with Regulation 13 (3)
(c) & (4) of the PPDA (Contracts) Regulations 2014.
2.2.7 Records management in the PDE
The audit team observed that: Out of the forty (40) cases reviewed, 15 cases lacked records of
payment to providers while some others lacked contract management records such as delivery
notes and invoices.
18
Implication
Failure to have an effective and efficient record keeping system disrupts the audit trail and
results into delays as a result of waiting for documents to be provided.
Management Response
Recommendation
Unit should ensure that User Departments archive all contract management records and
submit reports on the progress or completion of a contract to the PDU in accordance with
Regulations 53(3) (a) (vii) and 53(3) (g) of the PPDA (Contracts) Regulations, 2014.
2.2.8 Reporting to PPDA
For the period under review, the Entity did not submit Monthly Reports to PPDA contrary to
Regulation 293 (5) of the PPDA Regulations 2003. Reports for the whole financial year were
submitted on 14th July 2014 according to a letter from KYU to the Authority.
Implication
Lack of transparency and accountability in the procurements conducted by the Entity.
Management Response
Refer to the annex regarding submission of reports.
Recommendations
The Authority noted from the documents provided in the annex that the letter submitting the
monthly reports for the period July 2013 to June 2014 to the Authority was dated 14th July
2014 and therefore recommends as follows:
 The Accounting Officer should caution in writing the Head Procurement and Disposal
Unit for failure to comply with the requirements to prepare monthly reports in accordance
with Regulation 20 of the PPDA (Procuring and Disposing Entities) Regulations, 2014.
 The Accounting Officer should ensure that all monthly procurement reports are submitted
to PPDA as per Regulation 20 of the PPDA (Procuring and Disposing Entities)
Regulations, 2014.
2.2.9 Procurement performance measurement system (PPMS)
At the time of the audit, only 7 (17.5%) of the forty (40) sampled procurements were entered
on the procurement performance measurement system PPMS which is a data recording
system that facilitates assessment of the effectiveness, efficiency and transparency of the
public procurement and disposal system in Uganda.
Implication
Failure to enter procurement data into the PPMS makes it difficult for the entity to assess
their individual performance and for Authority to identify and recommend targeted actions
towards the key performance areas under PPMS that are weak and require additional support.
Management Response
19
Recommendation
The Authority noted the response and recommends that the Accounting Officer should ensure
that all procurements undertaken by the Entity are entered into the PPMS data base since this
serves as an internal control tool and also facilitates preparation of reports to various
stakeholders.
2.2.10 Delays in the Procurement Process
The audit revealed delays in the tenders below:Subject
Initiation
Contract
date
Signature
22nd/7/2014
421
10th/10/2013
30th/6/2014
264
160
(104)
28th/8/2013
16th/2/2014
173
110
(63)
Method
28th/5/2013
PPDA
maximum
Indicative
time
frames
110
Installation,
RFQ
Configuration
and
Training on Atomic
Absorption
Spectrophotometer in
Chemistry
Department
KU/SRVCS/201314/01098
Supply and Delivery RDB
of Textbooks for
Mechanical
&
Production
Engineering
Department
KU/SPLS/20132014/00703
Provision of eats and RFQ
drinks during the 10th
Graduation
Ceremony
at
Kyambogo
University
KU/SRVCS/20132014/00414
Calendar
Days
Taken
Variance
(311)
Implication
Delayed procurement affects service delivery to the beneficiaries of the procurement and
hinders efficiency of the procurement function.
Management Response
20
Recommendation
that the delays in procurement at the various stages are addressed in accordance with Section
48 of the PPDA Act 2003.
2.2.11 Posting Notices on the tender portal
The audit revealed that much as the Entity had received training from the Authority on the
posting of bid notices on the tender portal, none of the procurements undertaken by the entity
during the financial year under review were posted onto the tender portal contract to
Regulation 140 (3) of the PPDA Regulations 2003.
Implication
 Failure to post procurements onto the tender portal limits transparency and accountability.
 Potential bidders are also denied opportunity to participate in the procurement process.
Management Response
Recommendation
that all procurements undertaken by the Entity are posted onto the tender portal in accordance
with Regulation 14 (2) (b) and 42 (2) of the PPDA (Rules and Methods for procurement of
supplies, works and non consultancy services) Regulations 2014
2.2.12 Revenue Sources
The audit revealed that the University generates local revenue from various properties on its
campus. However, there was no evidence to prove that valuation of the services was
conducted to establish a reserve price and that the various managers of these properties
underwent a competitive procurement process prior to award of contracts. It was also not
clear whether the properties are let out for provision of a specific service or whether the
service is left to the discretion of the property manager. Some of these properties include: Buildings occupied by Stanbic Bank, Crane Bank and Eco Bank.
 The Public Cafe.
 The University Guest House.
 The Cricket Oval Restaurant.
 Guild Cafe
 Fruit Center
 Nanziri Canteen, Kulubya Canteen among others.
 Various Secretarial service centres.
Implication
Failure to have a competitive method through which managers (tenants) of the various
properties are procured inhibits achievement of value for money.
Management Response
Valuers’ have been contracted to establish reserve prices for the service centres.
21
Recommendation
that all revenue sources in the Entity are valued to determine their reserve prices and these
should be competitively procured in accordance with Section 46 of the PPDA Act 2003.
2.2.13 Framework Contracts
The audit revealed that;
At the time of evaluation for award of framework contracts,
 Although the solicitation document indicated under ITB 12.1 (i) that bidders were to
declare that they were not participating as a bidder in more than one bid in the bidding
process, some bidders submitted and were evaluated on more than one bid.
 Under internet services, M/s Roke and M/s Highway were responsive. However, on
11/6/2012, Mr Brian Mugambwa indicated that the bidder was non-responsive on failure
to submit documentary evidence establishing the bidder’s qualifications to perform the
contract if their bid is accepted.
 Under tyres, the only bidder M/s Arrow Centre was responsive. However, on 11/6/2012,
Mr. James Sekalumba, Ms. Christine Oluka, Ms. Angela Nadongo indicated that M/s
Arrow Centre was non-responsive on bid validity of 120 working days. It is not clear how
the bidder was eventually approved.
 Under advertising, the only bidder M/s The Observer was responsive. However, on
11/6/12, Mr. James Sekalumba, Ms. Christine Oluka, Mr. Brain Mugambwa, Ms. Angela
Nadongo indicated that M/s The Observer was non-responsive on bid validity of 120
working days. It is not clear how the bidder was eventually approved.
 Under Emptying Pit Latrines, M/s Kika Supplies and M/s G&B were responsive.
However, on 08/06/2012. Mr. James Sekalumba, Ms. Angela Nadongo and Mr. Brain
Mugambwa indicated that M/s Kika Supplies was non-responsive on bid validity of 120
working days and failure to declare that the bidder was not participating as a bidder in
more than one bid.
 On 27th July 2012 after the evaluation process had been conducted, the CC noted that the
specifications for some categories were not sufficient in the solicitation document
namely; catering services, fumigation, tyres, internet services, hotel and conference
facilities, servicing of generators and emptying pit latrines.
A list of call off orders placed during the financial year under review for each category
was not readily available at the time of the audit.
Implications
 There was a risk that the ground was not levelled for all bidders leading to unfairness to
some of the bidders as others were favoured.
 Failure to keep complete and accurate records of call of orders placed during the year
under review inhibits transparency and accountability.
Management Response
 ITB 12.1 (i) that bidders were to declare that they were not participating as a bidder in
more than one bid in the bidding process; in that bidding process, ITB 12.1 implied that a
bidder X could bid for food , Tyres, and cleaning materials e.t.c. as X but not as X for
food and Y for food
 Some requirements were considered immaterial by the evaluation committee and waived.
22
Recommendations
The Authority noted the Entity’s response but found it unsatisfactory. The response on the
requirement for bidders to declare that they were not participating in more than one bid was
unclear while requirements such as bid validity which was waived by the evaluation
committee cannot be considered as immaterial therefore the Authority recommends as
follows:
 The Head Procurement and Disposal Unit should ensure that evaluation is conducted in
accordance with the PPDA (Evaluation) Regulations 2014.
 The Head Procurement and Disposal Unit should ensure that contract managers are
appointed for all framework contracts and that they keep complete records for all orders
placed.
 The Accounting Officer should ensure that the Contracts committee further performs its
functions according to Regulation 12 of the PPDA (Procuring and Disposing Entities)
Regulations, 2014 and Section 28 of the PPDA Act 2003.
2.2.14 Disposals
It was noted that the entity had a number of assets especially vehicles which were grounded
and therefore due for disposal. Information provided to the audit team indicated that there
were some efforts by the board of survey to initiate a disposal process however, this was not
conducted.
Implication
Failure to dispose off assets whose use ceased inhibits achievement of value for money as
funds are held up in these assets and also lost through depreciation of these assets.
Management Response
Noted and recommendation shall be addressed
Recommendation
The Authority noted the response and recommends that the Accounting Officer should in
accordance with Regulation 2 of the PPDA (Disposal) Regulations 2014 ensure assets of the
Entity are reviewed to identify those to be disposed off.
Fig 1. One of the Vehicles that was
used under the former UNISE
Fig 2. A bus that was grounded Fig 3. An Ambulance which
after new buses were acquired was grounded after a new one
was acquired.
23
Fig 4. A vehicle formerly used to
Fig 6. A grounded vehicle at
Fig 5. A vehicle grounded due the University
transport disabled students
to high maintenance costs
Fig 8. A grounded vehicle at
Fig 7. A grounded vehicle at the
Fig 9. One of the vehicles
the University
University
grounded after new ones were
acquired
Fig 10. One of the Vehicles
grounded after new doublecabins Fig 11. One of the Vehicles Fig 12. A grounded tractor at
the Estates Office
were acquired
grounded at the University
Fig 13. Vehicles grounded at the Fig 14. Vehicles grounded at
the Security Office
Security Office
24
2.15 Implementation of previous audit recommendations
Area
Recommendation
Procurement
Planning
Initiation of
procurement
process
Use of Non
prequalified firms
Recommending
award to a Non
responsive bid
Lack of evidence of
approval of
Evaluation Report
Lack of evidence of
signed contract
Failure to appoint
contract managers
Reasons
for
nonimplementation
The Accounting Officer and PDU should  At the time of review, the
ensure that all procurements to be conducted
entity had just been issued
are included in the Procurement Plan in
the previous audit report
accordance with Regulation 4(a) of the
PPDA (Procuring and Disposing Entities)
Regulations, 2014 and where procurements
are deemed necessary following approval of
the Plan, it may be amended in accordance
with Regulation 3(3) & (4) of the PPDA
(Procuring
and
Disposing
Entities)
Regulations, 2014.
The Accounting Officer should caution in  At the time of review, the
writing Heads of User Departments who
initiated procurements that were not on the
Entity’s plan.
The AO should ensure that procurement
 At the time of review, the
requirements are initiated according to
Regulation 3(5) of the PPDA (Rules and
Methods for Procurement of Works,
and recommendations were
Supplies and Non-consultancy services)
yet to be implemented
Regulations, 2014.
The AO should caution the HPDU for
failure to use prequalified firms as required
by Regulation 43(3) of the PPDA (Rules
and methods for procurement of supplies,
works and non-consultancy services)
Regulations, 2014.
The HPDU should ensure that the EC  At the time of review, the
carries out evaluation in accordance with
Regulation 7(2) of the PPDA (Evaluation)
Regulations, 2014.
The AO should ensure that HPDU submits  At the time of review, the
the evaluation report to CC for approval in
conformity with Regulation 35(4) of the
PPDA (Evaluation) Regulations, 2014.
The AO should ensure that all works  The audit team did not come
contracts awarded are signed as required by
across any procurement
Regulation 11 (2) of the PPDA (Contracts)
without a signed contract.
Regulations, 2014
Implemented
Heads of User Departments should  At the time of review, the
nominate contract managers and ensure
preparation of contract implementation
plans as per Regulation 52(1) and 51(3) of
the PPDA (Contracts) Regulations, 2014.
yet to be implemented.
25
Area
Recommendation
Reasons
for
nonimplementation
Defects liability
period
The AO and the contract mangers should
ensure that all defects on works contracts
are satisfactory rectified prior to expiry of
defects liability period and authorization to
release retention monies.
Delayed payments
to providers
The Accounting Officer should ensure
timely payment of providers as per
Regulation 49(3) of the PPDA (Contracts)
Regulations, 2014.
Lack of evidence of
contract
supervision
The AO should ensure that UDs archive all 
contract management records and submit
monthly reports on the progress or
completion of a contract to the PDU in
accordance with Regulations 53(3) (a) (vii)
and 53(3) (g) of the PPDA (Contracts)
Regulations, 2014.
Reporting to PPDA
The AO should caution in writing the
HPDU for failure to prepare procurement
monthly reports.

The AO should ensure that all monthly
procurement reports are submitted to
PPDA as per Regulation 20 of the PPDA
(Procuring and disposing Entities)
Regulations, 2014.


At the time of review, the
26
CHAPTER THREE: AUDIT CONCLUSION AND ACTION PLAN
3.1
AUDIT CONCLUSION
There were a number of delays noted in the procurement cycle at various stages which
hindered efficiency of the procurement function. Lack of a consolidated procurement plan
which includes all User Departments of the entity resulted into some split procurements
which hindered achievement of economy and efficiency. Failure to make proper estimates of
requirements and unplanned procurements hindered effectiveness of the procurement
function.
The overall performance of the Entity was highly unsatisfactory with an overall weighted
average of 83.91% of sampled contracts.
3.2
ACTION PLAN
Area
Recommendations
Procurement
Planning
Initiation
Bidding
Responsible
Person
 The HPDU should ensure that all HPDU
departmental
work
plans
are
aggregated into the consolidated
procurement plan in accordance with
Section 58 (2) of the PPDA Act 2003.
 Task the User departments to ensure
that realistic usage rates are determined
before initiation of procurements is
done.
 The Accounting Officer should ensure AO
that the delays in procurement at the
various stages are addressed to ensure
efficiency.

The AO should ensure that UDs make
realistic cost estimates as per
Regulation 3(2) (a) of the PPDA (Rules
and methods for procurement of
supplies, works and non-consultancy
services) Regulations, 2014.

The
AO
should
ensure
that
procurement requirements are initiated
according to Regulation 3 (5) of the
PPDA (Rules and Methods for
Procurement of Works, Supplies and
Non-consultancy services) Regulations,
2014.
The AO should caution in writing the AO
HPDU for failure to use prequalified
firms as required by Regulation 43(3)
of the PPDA (Rules and methods for
procurement of supplies, works and

Timeframe
February 2015
February 2015
February 2015
27
Area
Recommendations
Responsible
Person
Timeframe
non-consultancy services) Regulations,
2014.

The HPDU should ensure that there is HPDU
evidence of invitation of bidders on the
procurement action files such as copies
acknowledged by the bidders and
emails sent out to the bidders.

Evaluation
The HPDU should avoid limiting of the
shortlist to only a few providers so as
to promote competition and fairness in
accordance with Regulation 43 (4) of
the PPDA (Rules and methods for
2014.
 The Accounting Officer should
investigate the possible causes of the
poor response to bid invitation by the
providers.
 The Chairman Contracts Committee
should ensure that all approvals made
and reasons for the decision are
indicated on the PP Form 209 in
accordance with Section 28 of the
PPDA Act 2003.
 The HPDU should ensure that
solicitation documents are issued when
direct procurement is used in
accordance with Regulation 47 (1) (b)
of the PPDA (Rules and methods for
2014
 The HPDU should ensure that all
members of the evaluation committee
are approved by the Contracts
Committee in accordance with Section
28 (1) (b) of the PPDA Act 2003.

The HPDU should ensure that the
evaluation committee members adhere
to the criteria set out in the solicitation
document
in
accordance
with
Regulation 7 (2) of the PPDA
(Evaluation) Regulations 2014.

The
Accounting
Officer
HPDU
AO
Chairperson
Contracts
Committee
HPDU
HPDU
February 2015
should AO
28
Area
Recommendations
Responsible
Person
Timeframe
investigate,
identify
and
take
appropriate disciplinary action against
Officers of the Entity responsible for
unethical conduct i.e. falsification of
documents.
Contract
Placement and
Award


Contract
Management
The Chairman Contracts Committee Chairperson
should ensure that all approvals made Contracts
and reasons for the decision are Committee
indicated on the PP Form 209 in
accordance with Section 28 of the
PPDA Act 2003.
The HPDU should ensure that all
unsuccessful bidders receive a copy of
the notice of best evaluated bidder in
accordance with Regulation 4 (1) (a) of
the PPDA (Contracts) Regulations
2014 and clearly indicate the reasons
for their failure.
 The HPDU should ensure before
signing a contract that the special
conditions in the solicitation document
are similar to those in the final contract.
Any differences should be resolved
prior to contract signing.
 The AO should ensure that Heads of
User Departments nominate contract
managers and ensure preparation of
contract implementation plans as per
Regulation 52 (1) and 51(3) of the
PPDA (Contracts) Regulations, 2014.



February 2015
HPDU
HPDU
Accounting
Officer and User
Departments
February 2015
The AO and UD should ensure
satisfactory rectification of all defects
on works contracts prior to expiry of
defects
liability
period
and
authorisation to release retention
monies.
The Accounting Officer should ensure
timely payment of providers within 30 AO
days of delivery/completion as per
Regulation 49 (3) of the PPDA
(Contracts) Regulations, 2014.
The AO should ensure that where
contractors fail to meet the terms and AO
conditions of the contract, the contract
is terminated in accordance with
29
Area
Signing
contracts
Payments
Providers
Record
Keeping
Reporting
Recommendations
Regulation 13 (3) (c) & (4) of the
PPDA (Contracts) Regulations 2014.
of The AO should ensure formal delegation
to officials signing contracts on his behalf.
of The Accounting Officer should prevail
over the User Departments, specifically,
Finance and Administration, to submit
photocopies of payment receipts in
accordance with Reg. 91.
The AO should ensure that UDs archive all
contract management records and submit
monthly reports on the progress or
completion of a contract to the PDU in
accordance with Regulations 53(3) (a) (vii)
and 53(3) (g) of the PPDA (Contracts)
Regulations, 2014.
 The AO should caution in writing the
HPDU for failure to comply with the
requirements to prepare monthly
reports in accordance with Regulation
20 of the PPDA (PDES) Regulations,
2014.
Responsible
Person
Timeframe
Accounting
Officer
Accounting
Officer
February 2015
Accounting
Officer, HPDU
and User
Departments
February 2015
Accounting
Officer and
HPDU
February 2015
UD/HPDU
February 2015
Accounting
Officer,
Contracts
Committee,
Head PDU
February 2015
AO
February 2015
AO
February 2015
February 2015

The AO should ensure that all monthly
procurement reports are submitted to
PPDA as per Regulation 20 of the
PPDA (Procuring and Disposing
Entities) Regulations, 2014.
Disposal
of The AO should in accordance with
Regulation 2 of the PPDA (Disposal)
Assets
Regulations 2014 ensure assets of the
Entity are reviewed to identify those to be
disposed of.
The AO should ensure that all
Performance
of Accounting procurements undertaken by the Entity are
entered into the PPMS data base since this
Officer
serves as an internal control tool and also
facilitates preparation of reports to various
stakeholders.
The AO should ensure that all
Posting
Notices on the procurements undertaken by the Entity are
tender portal posted onto the tender portal in accordance
with Regulation 14 (2) (b) and 42 (2) of
the PPDA (Rules and Methods for
procurement of supplies, works and non
consultancy services) Regulations 2014.
The Accounting Officer should ensure that
Revenue
all revenue sources in the Entity are valued
Sources
30
Area
Framework
Contracts
Recommendations
Responsible
Person
to determine their reserve prices and these
should be competitively procured in
accordance with Section 46 of the PPDA
Act 2003.
The HPDU should ensure that evaluation HPDU
is conducted in accordance with the PPDA
(Evaluation) Regulations 2014.
The HPDU should ensure that contract
managers are appointed for all framework
contracts and that they keep complete
records for all orders placed.
Delays in the The AO should ensure that the delays in AO
procurement at various stages are
procurement
addressed in accordance with Section 48 of
process
the PPDA Act 2003.
Timeframe
February 2015
February 2015
31
APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RATING OF INDIVIDUAL
CONTRACTS CASE BY CASE
High Risk Cases
H1 Case 16
Risk: High
Provider : M/s Lamac Uganda Ltd
Amount :
UGX 31,303,700
UGX 37,818,000
Estimate:
Contract: Teaching
Materials for Civil &
Building Engineering
Method: RDB
8th January 2014 (LPO)
Contract Date :
Reference No.
Not appointed
Contract
KU/supls/13Manager:
14/00463
Exceptions
 Authorising Officer only indicated signature & date but no name on PP Form 20
 Confirmation of funding took about 4 working days however this was done
before approval to procure.
 Invitation to bid was approved on 21st October 2013 by the CC almost two
months after initiation.
 Eligible bidders had to fulfill obligations of Social Security contributions but
there was no evidence that this requirement was met.
 No evidence of invitation sent to bidders
 Mukab General supplies was not on the list of providers for building materials
 After outcomes of the EC, the Ag. HOD DCBE wrote a letter to the
Chairperson Evaluation committee requesting for removal & reduction of some
items from the Procurement Requisition due to limited funding.
 Submission to CC was made for Method, SBD & shortlist but no evidence of
submission for EC approval.
 It was noted during evaluation that time for acquisition of materials had run out
since students were going on Holiday by 15th December 2013
 No evidence that unsuccessful bidders received the notice of best evaluated
bidder.
 Delivery notes from Lamac (U) Ltd were issued on 20th & 21st May 2014 four
months after the LPO had been issued. Delivery was required to be within 2
weeks after issue of the LPO.
 No evidence of payments made to the supplier, tax invoice was issued on
22/5/2014.
H2 Case 24
Contract: Computers
& Laptops for the
University Library &
University Bursar
Method: RFQ
Reference No.
KU/Suppls/20132014/000851
Risk: High
Provider : M/s Net Soft Consulting Services
Amount :
UGX 43,048,000
UGX 37,500,000
Estimate:
Contract Date :
Contract
Manager:
5th May 2014
Not appointed
32
Exceptions
 Not explicitly stated on the consolidated plan. The plan had computer supplies
and IT services of UGX 182,500,000 but did not state whether this procurement
was inclusive.
 Request had purchase of ICT (Library) Equipment without University Bursar
 Approval to procure had only a signature, no name & date was captured.
 Nominated EC did not have a representative from the Library dept i.e. the User
 No evidence of issuance of letters of request for quotations
 Olitech International Ltd was not on the pre-qualified list & also not on the
shortlist but was issued with a bid document
 Bernard Bazirake & Kikonyogo Robert signed on the ethical code of conduct
but had not been approved by the CC to be on the EC
 No proof of receipt of notification by unsuccessful bidder.
 No delivery note, No invoice, No proof of payments made
H3
Case 21
Risk: High
Provider : M/s Gamut Investments Ltd
Contract: Re- print of Amount :
UGX 27,146,130
DEPE modules
UGX 27,250,000
Estimate:
Method: RFQ
21st January 2014
Contract Date :
Not appointed
Reference No.
Contract
KU/Srvcs/2013Manager:
2014/00677
Exceptions
 Not in the procurement plan
 Approval to procure was done on 31st August 2013 after confirmation of funding
on 17th February 2013.
 Only signature & date were appended but no name for confirmation of funding.
 Initiation was on time i.e. 13th/5/13 however by October 2013, CC approvals for
Method, EC, shortlist & SBD had not been done hence a five (5) months delay.
 No proof on file of receipt of invitation by the various bidders
 CC decided to retrospectively approve the evaluation committee due to a strike.
 Submissions for approval of contract award and recommendations were done on
6th/1/2014 before signing of the evaluation report on 7th/1/2014.
 Reasons stated for unsuccessful bidders were “2nd best evaluated bidder” & “3rd
best evaluated bidder” which might not make sense to the unsuccessful bidder.
 No proof of receipt of notification by unsuccessful bidders.
 No evidence of payments to supplier
H4 Case 3
Contract: Materials
for In house Training
for Dept of Food
Processing
Technology SemII/13-14
Method: RFQ
Risk: High
Provider : M/s Gemuru Enterprises Ltd
Amount :
UGX 18,065,000
UGX 18,136,000
Estimate:
Contract Date :
4TH June 2014
33
Reference No.
Not appointed
Contract
KYU/Supls/2013Manager:
14/00595
Exceptions
 Not in the consolidated procurement plan
 Only signature but no name for confirmation of funds.
 SCC (GCC 12.1) stated that delivery was to be within 7 working days from date
of purchase order but a letter on file from the Ag. HOD dated 3/10/2013
indicates that highly perishable materials would be delivered the session is being
conducted. There was no evidence of harmonization of SCC.
 No CC approvals for solicitation document
 No evidence of issue of solicitation letters to shortlisted firms
 M/s Gemuru Ent.Ltd was not prequalified for food stuffs, laboratory chemicals
& apparatus
 The Forms used were not PPDA standard forms for issue of bid documents.
 On receipt of bids there is no evidence of a witness from the Contracts
Committee signing was done by Ag. HOD & Ass. Proc Officer.
 No evidence of nomination of EC on file
 Signed on 5/5/2014 after holding the evaluation meeting on 30th April 2014 at
11:30 am
 No evidence of approval of the evaluation report by CC
 No evidence of payments on file. It was noted that the Entity had not received an
invoice from the provider at the time of the audit.
H5
Case 8
Risk: High
Provider : M/s Smith & Ouzman
Amount :
GBP 13,650
UGX 42,000,000
Estimate:
Contract: Academic
Transcript Blacks for
Academic Registrar
Method: Direct
20TH September 2013
Contract Date :
Reference No.
Not appointed
Contract
KU/Suppls/2013Manager:
2014/00232
Exceptions
 Item was not in the consolidated plan. The plan had transcripts estimated at UGX
40,000,000 but not transcript blacks
 Confirmation of funding (26th/8/2013) was delayed by 4 months from initiation
(7th/5/2013) yet requirement was Sept 2013. Only signature & date but no name.
 No copy of bid document or Request for proposals on file.
 There is no justification on file for use of direct method; an emergency might have
been internally created by delay of confirmation of funds.
 The provision on the PP form 209 for CC decision does not indicate the decisions
taken.
 Evaluation was not conducted
 Supplier is not on the list of prequalified suppliers.
 No evidence of payments made to the supplier
H6 Case 14
Risk: High
34
Provider : M/s Lamac Uganda Ltd
Amount :
UGX 47,172,000
UGX 49,980,000
Estimate:
Contract: Internal
networking Materials
University Library Centre
Method: Restricted Bidding Contract Date :
9th January 2014
Reference No.
Not appointed
Contract
KU/Srvcs/2013-2014/00368 Manager:
Exceptions
 Not in the consolidated plan. The plan did not explicitly state internal networking
materials for University Library Centre but had Networking equipment UGX
137,000,000
 No evidence of receipt of invitations by bidders.
 Lamac was not prequalified for Computers, Accessories & other ICT Equipments.
 Bid Opening was delayed by the Strike that put business at the University on hold
 Commercial-Criteria was changed to include warranty period of one year which was
not in the solicitation document
 No indication of approval of evaluation report by contracts committee.
 The Officer in the BEB’s Powers of Attorney instead signed as the Witness to the
contract & not as the Main signatory.
 Correction on GCC 26.2 in solicitation document-SCC was not in the signed
contract i.e. the location for conducting inspections & tests shall be the Point of
Delivery i.e. Kyambogo University Stores & Installation Sites. Installation sites
were left out in the contract.
 The SCC in the solicitation document did not include GCC 28.3 & 28.5 in the
contract which stated warranty of 1 year & period within which the Provider shall
repair or replace defective supplies-Two months respectively.
 At the time of the audit, the Entity had not been invoiced therefore payment had not
been effected.
H7 Case 35
Contract: Renovation works
to the building of lands &
architectural studies.
Method: RFQ
Reference No:
KYU/WRKS/20112012/00610
Risk: High
Provider : M/s Malcom Investments Ltd
Amount :
UGX 36,567,905 VAT Inclusive
UGX 36,567,905
Estimate:
Contract Date :
Contract Manager:
18th February 2013
A contract management
committee was appointed
35
Works were still ongoing as at 22nd/7/2014. The contractor over delayed to commence
work and was given to contract extension.
36
Exceptions
 No evidence on file of issue of solicitation letters to bidders
 The letter of invitation did not state specific dates for Issue of RFQ & opening,
Evaluation was within 5 working days from bid closing
 Two of the people who signed the ethical code were not nominated. i.e. Dr. Micheal
Kyakula & Dr. Rosemary Nabadda. NB. Evidence provided by the Entity as
evidence that Dr. Kyakula had been nominated was found to be forged. The
copy obtained during the audit did not have his name while the copy submitted
as evidence had his name included.
 Some people in attendance at evaluation had not been approved by Contracts
Committee.
 Criteria for Technical was not stated in the RFQ, NEC was Non responsive at
technical evaluation because the suggested project managers years of experience
were not indicated
 There was a very long delay in implementation of the contract. Details are stated as
follows:o A letter was written to the BEB dated 19th July 2013 by the AO indicating that
the site had been handed over on 21st June 2013 to the BEB to start works on
Building of Lands & Architectural Studies but by the date of the letter no works
had started yet the contract duration was 8 weeks. The BEB wrote back on
5th/8/13 indicating why they had not started mainly that they had many
commitments and that the Entity had outstanding payments from previous
contracts.
o On 18th March 2014 the Ag. Estates Officer Nanfuka Christine wrote to the AO
to seek advice on a way forward for the contractor
o In the 27th Cc meeting on 14th May 2014 the contract was revised to commence
2nd June 2014 all other terms remained the same.
o On 28th May 2014 the AO wrote to the BEB informing them of the CC decision
& requesting for a work program not later 2nd June 2014. There is no evidence
of submission of a work program.
 There were differences between the SCC in the solicitation document and the SCC
in the signed contract these are listed below;
o The BEB did not submit the program of works within 5 working days after
delivery of Letter of acceptance.
o GCC 2.3 Type of contract in the contract states Renovation works to the
Building of Lands & Architectural Studies while in the solicitation documentSCC it states lump sum contract
o GCC 21.1 in contract states that Site possession shall be after site handover
while in solicitation document-SCC it states on Signing of contract
o GCC 43.1 Payments in the solicitation document-SCC stated payment within 30
days on receipt of invoice, payment certificate & certificate of completion. The
contract under SCC did not indicate this.
o GCC 27.1 Contractor shall submit the program for works within 5 working days
of delivery of the letter of acceptance but the solicitation document-SCC states
within 5 working days of delivery of the purchase order agreement.
H8 Case 40
Contract: Tyres for
Risk: High
Provider : M/s Arrow Centre Ltd
Amount :
UGX 7,552,000
37
Four University
UGX 7,552,000
Estimate:
Double cabins
Method: Framework
22nd October 2012
Contract Date :
(Open domestic
bidding)
Reference No.
Not appointed
Contract
KU/Frmwrk/13Manager:
14/00511
Exceptions
 Notices were not posted onto the tender portal
 There was a request for supply letter dated 26th/9/2013 from Abok Justin (Transport
Officer).
 Approval to procure was signed on 28th/10/13 after committing funds on 4th/10/13.
 No payment records provided.
H9
Case 5
Risk: High
Provider : M/s MFI Office Solution
Amount :
UGX 17,972,591.8
UGX 17,000,000
Estimate:
Contract:
Consumables for DP
line 110 copier for
Academic
Method: Direct
4th September 2013
Contract Date :
Method
Not appointed
Reference No:
Contract
KYU/Supls/13Manager:
14/00225
Exceptions
 Approval to procure was done on 21st/8/2013 after confirmation of funds on
16th/8/2013. There was also only a signature and no name.
 The PP Form 209 CC decision on submission does not contain what was approved
on behalf of the contracts committee. A note on the form indicated to the
chairperson contracts committee to consider approval of shortlist of bidders,
solicitation document & method.
 There was no evaluation conducted.
 No records of payments to Provider.
H10 Case 37
Contract:
Maintenance of MV
UAJ 084X, Vice
Chancellors vehicle
Method: Direct
Method
Reference No.
KU/Srvcs/20132014/00357
Risk: High
Provider : M/s Victoria Motors Ltd
Amount :
UGX 5,158,370
UGX 5,228,840
Estimate:
Contract Date :
11th October 2013
Contract
Manager:
Not appointed
38
Exceptions
 There was no evaluation conducted
 PP Form 209 CC decision on a submission did not indicate what had been
approved by the CC
 No evidence of payment records
H11 Case 36
Risk: High
Provider : M/s Rinack Holding Ltd (Lot 1,2,4) & M/s
Mukab General Supplies Ltd (Lot 3)
Amount :
UGX 63,391,000 (All lots)
Contract:
Instructional materials Estimate:
UGX 73,236,000 (All lots)
for dep’t of
Mechanical
Production
Engineering
Method: RFQ
Contract Date : 18th March 2014
Reference No.
Not appointed
Contract
KU/Suppls/2013Manager:
2014/00664
Exceptions
 No evidence on file of receipt of invitation letters by the shortlisted bidders
 The PP Form 209 CC decision on submission did not indicate what was approved
by the CC i.e. of solicitation document, method & shortlist
 The timelines in the solicitation document indicated within 5 days after bid
opening which was done on 13th/1/2014. Reason for the delay is not stated
 Proof of issue of solicitation letters was not on the file
 LPO for lot 1 was not on file.
 No evidence of payments made to the provider.
H12 Case 18
Risk: High
Provider : M/s Smith & Ouzman
Amount :
USD 8,886.4
USD 10,040 (£1=4095)
Estimate:
Contract: printing of
Grade III result slips
& teaching
certificates blanks
Method: Direct
Contract Date : 7th/10/2013
Method
Reference No.
Not appointed
Contract
KU/Srvcs/2013Manager:
2014/00340
Exceptions
 Approval to procure was done on 19th/9/13 after AO signed on 13th/9/13 by Kisule
William Senior Assistant Bursar.
 The PP Form 209 did not indicate what was approved by the CC
 No bidding document on the action file.
 There was no evaluation conducted
 No payment records on file
 No evidence of appointment of the contract manager.
39
H13 Case 22
Contract: Supply and Delivery of
Textbooks for Mechanical &
Production Engineering Department
Method: Restricted Bidding
Risk: High
Provider : M/s Gustro Ltd
Amount:
UGX 60,971,360 VAT
Exempt
UGX 79,644,150
Estimate:
30th June 2014
Contract
Date:
Not appointed
Contract
Manager:
Reference No: KU/SPLS/20132014/00703
Physical verification
The books had not yet been supplied at the time of the audit.
Exceptions
 The plan indicated UGX 148,000,000 for books & periodicals but did not explicitly
state whether they were text books for Mechanical & production Engineering
Department.
 The statement of requirements repeated one book (M/s Shigley’s Mechanical
Engineering Design, 9th edition – Nos 22 and 35).
 There was no evidence of receipt of the invitation to the three bidders.
 There was no evidence of purchase the solicitation document by Laxmi
Publications (U) Ltd.
 Bid prices of bidders were not indicated on PP Form 35.
 Laxmi Publications (P) Ltd did not purchase the solicitation document.
 Bid prices of bidders were not indicated on PP Form 35.
 Mallory International Ltd did not quote for items No. 17, 19, 26 & 31 since they
were out of print.
 It is not indicated how the reduction was made in the evaluation report.
 It was noted that at the time of the audit, items had not been delivered..
H14 Case 19
Contract: Filling of
Potholes in the
University
Method: Request for
Quotations
Reference No:
KU/WRKS/20132014/00530
Risk: High
Provider : M/s Dewans Services Ltd
Amount:
UGX 40,937,551 (5% contingencies and 18%
VAT inclusive)
Estimate: UGX 43,231,188
9th January 2014
Contract
Date:
Appointed by Mr. Patrick W. Madaya, Ag.
Contract
Managers: University Secretary/Accounting Officer:
 Mrs. Buga Winfred (Dean of Students)
 Dr. Nyende Jacob (Ag. HOD, Civil and
Building Engineering)
 Ms. Nanfuka B. Christine (Ag. Estates and
Works Department Officer)
40
Physical verification
UNEB Security road; New potholes were emerging on the patches made.
Exceptions
 The officer who signed for “approval to procure” signed retrospectively on
28/10/2013 after the Accounting Officer on 18/10/2013.
 The procurement activity schedule lacked the actual dates but indicated for eg.
“expected date of opening of quotations”.
 The price indicated on PP Form 35 for M/s Dewans Services (U) Ltd was UGX
18,140,848 and yet in the bid it was UGX 42,851,558.
 The price indicated on PP Form 35 for M/s Frematex Services (U) Ltd was UGX
42,851,558 and yet in the bid it was UGX 18,140,848
 There was no evidence of receipt by the bidders of NoBEB
 There were no reasons for firms being unsuccessful.
 Mrs. Buga Winfred (Dean of Students) did not participate in site inspection.
 Filled more potholes than was in the BOQs, which led to a price variation of UGX
5,694,258. There was no evidence of approval by CC of extra works to carried
out..
H15 Case 30
Risk: High
Provider : M/s Infrastructure Design Forum
Amount:
UGX 124,097,000 (VAT exempt)
UGX 120,000,000
Estimate:
Contract: Consultancy Services
for Design of Research and
Industrial Linkages for Science and
Technology Incubation Centre at
Kyambogo University
Contract
Date:
Reference No:
Contract
KYU/SRVCS/2013-2014/10510/7 Managers:
3rd July 2014
Not appointed
41
Exceptions
 Evidence of delegated authority by the AO to Mr. Madaya to confirm funding
was not on the action file.
 The approving officer signed retrospectively on 6/2/2014 after Mr. Madaya on
4/2/2014
 Communication to M/s MBW Consulting Ltd noted rejecting their technical
proposal. The firm failed for presenting a non-certified trading license.
 There was no evidence of receipt of NoBEB by the bidders was noted.
H16 Case 9
Risk: High
Providers:
Lot 1: M/s Gemuru Enterprises Ltd at UGX
3,804,000 (28 items)
Lot 2: M/s Gemuru Enterprises Ltd at UGX
15,969,500 (19 items)
Lot 4: M/s Palin Corporation at UGX 9,392,652
(21 items)
Amount:
UGX 50,480,500 (00192)
Estimate:
UGX 26,258,420 (00191)
Teaching Materials for
Departments of Food Processing
Technology and Biological
Sciences for Semester 1 –
2013/2014
Method: Restricted Domestic
27th November 2013
Contract
Bidding
Date:
Reference No: KU/SPLS/2013Dr. Justin Otala (Lecturer)
Contract
2014/00191/00192
Manager:
Exceptions
 The officer (title) who approved to procure was not indicated. The date was
13/8/2013.
 CC Chair -Approved the evaluation team without authority (was given on 9th April
2014).
 EC requested User Department to scale down their requirements to fit in the budget.
On 24/10/2013, the UD communicated to the EC the reduction of 23 items to be
procured due to increases in prices and the restricted budget.
 There was no evidence of receipt of the invitation to the three bidders
 M/s Gemuru Enterprises was pre-qualified. Under Teaching materials for Art and
Design and not laboratory chemicals and apparatus. There were 8 prequalified firms
under this category.
 On 24/9/2013, the EC recommended cutting out items due to budgetary constraint.
On 24/9/2013, Dr. Patrick Ogwok reduced the price from UGX 50,480,000 to
UGX 19,800,000, the balance to be planned for Semester II. Implying that there
was no adequate assessment of market price at initiation of the requirement.
 No evidence of receipt of NoBEB by the bidders was noted.
 No delivery note from Palin
H17
Case 26
Risk: High
Consultancy Services for renovation and construction of building complexes at
42
Kyambogo University
Method: Open Domestic Bidding
Reference No: KYU/SRVCS/2013-2014/1051/1-7
Contract
Provider
Estimate
Consultancy Services for
Design and Production of
Bidding Documents for the
Proposed Central Library and
Virtual Capabilities (Lot 1)
Proposed Central Library and
Virtual Capabilities (Lot 2)
Proposed Faculty of
Engineering Workshops and
Laboratory (Lot 3)
Proposed Central Teaching
Facilities (Lot 4)
Proposed Technical Teacher
Workshops (Lot 5)
Proposed Multi-Purpose
Laboratory Science Block (Lot
6)
Contract Managers:
Contract
Price
UGX
117,500,000
(VAT
Exempt)
Contract
Date
7th April
2014
M/s
Oubuntu
Consulting
Ltd
UGX
38,000,000
(VAT
Exempt)
7th April
2014
M/s
UGX
Technology 125,000,000
Consults
(Renovation)
Ltd
UGX
375,000,000
(new works)
M/s
UGX
Technology 500,000,000
Consults
Ltd
UGX
7th April
250,862,400 2014
(VAT
Exempt)
M/s MBW
Consulting
Ltd
UGX
675,000,000
UGX
7th April
297,425,000 2014
(VAT
Exempt)
M/s IIiso
Consulting
Ltd
UGX
125,000,000
UGX
7th April
103,130,000 2014
(VAT
Exempt)
M/s
Oubuntu
Consulting
Ltd
UGX
250,000,000
UGX
7th April
200,161,800 2014
(VAT
Exempt)
43
Exceptions
 Not posted onto the tender portal
 Not in the procurement plan.
 The title and name of the official who signed for “approval to procure” were
not indicated. The date was 10/11/2013. Subject to approval of reallocation.
 No name and title of the officer who confirmed funds. The official who signed
for “approval to procure” did so retrospectively on 10/11/2013 after AO’s
approval on 28/10/2013.
 On 11th December 2013, the SPO wrote to the US, requesting for confirmation
of funding. This was after receipt of bids on 6/12/2013.
 On 12/12/2013, the US asked the SPO how the procurement was advertised
without PP Form 20.
 On 20/12/2013, the Bursar indicated that the PP Form has been signed
 Evaluation took two and ½ months
H18 Case 28
Contract: Printing and Delivery of
Answer Booklets for semester two
2013/2014 examination 24 paged.
Risk: High
Provider : Amazof Enterprises Ltd
Amount :
UGX 156,800,000 VAT
Inclusive
UGX 160,000,000
Estimate:
2/May 2014
Contract
Date :
Not appointed
Contract
Manager:
Reference No. KU/SRVCS/20132014/01191
Exceptions
 Data was not entered into the PPMS.
 There was no tender notice posted onto the tender portal.
 Approval to procure was done retrospective after the AO ON 19/09/2013
 liquidated damage is not asked for incase of late delivery what will happen
 The provider had not been paid at the time of the audit.
H19 Case 39
Contract: Servicing & maintaining of
motor Vehicle UAJ 478X
Method: RFQ
Risk: High
Provider : WAMUCO MOTORS (U)
LTD
Amount :
UGX 2,834,832
UGX 1,651,000
Estimate:
PORD -2907 2nd October
Contract
2013
Date :
Not appointed
Contract
Manager:
Exceptions
 There was no proof of payments made to the service provider.
 Prime Automobile Ltd one of the shortlisted bidders was not in the prequalified
list
 There was no notice posted on the tender portal.
44
H20 Case 17
Contract: Supply and delivery of Dell
Computers and Laptops for e-KAMPUS
Method: Open National Bidding
Reference No. KU/SUPLS/201314/00422
Physical Verification
Risk: High
Provider : M/s Mobile Computers Ltd
Amount :
UGX 81,156,512
UGX 82,500,000
Estimate:
27th February 2014
Contract
Date :
Not appointed
Contract
Manager:
Some of the computers supplied for the e-Kampus project.
Exceptions
 Not posted onto the tender portal
 Approval to procure was done retrospectively on 27th September 2013 while
confirmation of funding had been done by the AO on 10th September 2013.
 There was delay in confirmation of funds and approval to procure by one month.
 Reasons for unsuccessful bidders were not indicated.
 LPO was issued 10th/3/2014 i.e. about six months after initiation on 16th/8/2013.
H21 Case 38
Risk: High
Provider : M/S Jomat Ltd
Amount :
UGX 12,044,000
UGX 13,885,000
Estimate:
cleaning materials for a period of 18
months
Method: Frame work contracts (Open
2nd October 2012
Contract
Bidding)
Date :
Reference No. KU/FRMWRK/12Not appointed
Contract
13/00004a
Manager:
Exceptions
 A notice was not posted onto the tender portal.
 There was no evidence of appointment of a contract manager
 There were no records on file of payments made to the service provider.
H22 Case 7
Risk: High
Provider : M/S Bunyonyi Safaris Ltd
Contract: provision of Return Air Tickets Amount :
USD 10,240
USD 8,690
Estimate:
45
Method: Direct method
Contract
Date :
Contract
Manager:
10th August 2012
Reference No. KYU/SRVCS/2013Not appointed
14/00129
Exceptions
 No solicitation document was issued only one provider M/s Bunyonyi Safaris
Ltd
 No timelines included in the solicitation document
 No evaluation conducted
 Not explicitly stated on the consolidated procurement plan. The plan had
“travel abroad”
 No evidence of payment to the provider at the time of the audit.
H23 Case 10
Risk: High
Provider : Smith & Ouzman
Contract: Supply and Delivery of Subject Amount :
£ 16,425
and Return Envelops for Semester 1
£ 18,000
Estimate:
Exchange rate @ 4,070/=
Method: Direct Method
24th October 2013
Contract
Date :
Reference No. KU/SPLS/2013-14/00293
Not appointed
Contract
Manager:
Exceptions
 Time taken between initiation & contract signing of 2 months (30/8/1324/10/13) was too long and yet the method used was direct method under
confidential reasons
 Not in the Consolidated Plan
H24 Case 27
Risk: High
Provider : M/s Horizon Lines Ltd
Amount :
UGX 58,800,000
UGX 64,000,000
Estimate:
Contract: printing, supply and delivery
of answer booklets for Academic Year
2013/2014 semester 11
Method: Open Domestic Bidding
Contract Date : 02nd May 2014
Reference No. KU/SRVCS/2013Not appointed
Contract
2014/01190
Manager:
Exceptions
 Notices were not posted on the tender portal.
 Data had not been entered in PPMS.
 The CC approved RFQ as the method of procurement while on the BEB the
notice displayed showed ODB as the method of procurement.
 Copy of advert not seen
 No evidence of receipt of solicitation letters by bidders
 No evidence of nomination & approval of the EC by CC
 Mr. W. Turyahikayo (SAB-Exams) did not write his name nor sign the ethical
code of conduct.
 The provider had not been paid at the time of the audit
46
H25 Case 31
Contract: Provision of eats and drinks
during the 10th Graduation Ceremony at
Kyambogo University 20th -21st February
2014
Method: Request For Quotations
Risk: High
Provider :
 Twins General Agency Ltd
 M/S Jim Enterprises Ltd
Amount :
 UGX 4,000,000/= Lot 3
 UGX 3,000,000/= Lot 1
 UGX 2,800,000/= Lot 2
 UGX 2,100,000/= Lot 4
UGX 12,854,000
Estimate:
UGX
16th February 2014
Contract
Date :
Not appointed
Contract
Manager:
Exceptions
 Not in the consolidated procurement plan.
 No delegated authority from the AO to P. Mudaya to confirm funding.
 Bids were closed on 20/Nov/13 instead of the 30/Nov/13 due to the unrest
(strike) and closure of the University
 No reasons given to unsuccessful bidders
H26 Case 34
Contract: Installation, Configuration and
Training on Atomic Absorption
Spectrophotometer in Chemistry
Department
Method: Request For Quotations
Risk: High
Provider : M/S African Technologies
Ltd
Amount :
UGX 31,789,300
UGX 32,570,000
Estimate:
Contract
Date :
Contract
Manager:
22nd July 2014
14/01098
Exceptions
 Initiation was in May 2013 and contract signing was in July 2014
 Not indicated in the consolidated plan
H27 Case 4
Risk: High
Provider : M/S Uganda National
examination Board
Amount :
UGX 42,525,000
UGX 42,525,000
Estimate:
Contract: Procurement for security
printing , packing and Routing of national
PTC promotion and final examinations for
2013
Method: Direct Procurement
Contract
Date :
Reference No. KU/SRVCS/2013Contract
14/00097
Manager:
02 August 2013
Not appointed
47
Exceptions
 The justification was that it was for security printing, continuity and
compatibility purposes.
 No evidence of contract management records on file such as proof of payments
to provider.
H28 Case 32
Contract: Hire of the public address
system for the 10th graduation ceremony
Method: Request for Quotation
Risk: High
Provider : M/S & ELECTRONICS Ltd
Amount :
UGX 6,702,400
UGX 11,210,000
Estimate:
18,Feburay 2014
Contract
Date :
Not appointed
Contract
Manager:
Exceptions
 Display of NoBEB was on the date of contract signing i.e. 18th/2/2014
 No evidence of appointment of contract manager
 No payment records on file
Medium Risk Cases
M1 Case 25
Contract: Works at
Mackay House No.13
Method: RFP
Reference No.
KU/Srvcs/20132014/00932
Risk: Medium
Provider : M/s Dewans Services Ltd
Amount :
UGX 59,079,768
UGX 61,462,247
Estimate:
16th June 2014
Contract Date :
Not appointed
Contract
Manager:
Work was behind schedule. The contract had been signed on 16th June 2014 and work
was supposed to take a period of 4 weeks from the date of the contract. On the day of
verification i.e. 22nd July 2014, very little progress had been made as shown in the
photo. The contractor still had to make demolitions and alterations, remove all
electrical installations, burglar proofing & glazing to opening, painting walls and other
areas, overhaul all electrical supply, supply & fix water closets, over hauling septic tank
and other works.
48
Exceptions
 No proof of delegation to P. Nodaya DS to commit funds.
 Approval to procure was made on 13th/2/2014 after confirmation of funding by the
AO on 15/1/14 instead of the reverse.
 The provision on the form 209 for CC decision did not indicate the decisions taken.
 No evidence of issuance of solicitation letters & acknowledgement by providers.
 Timelines were not properly indicated i.e. specific dates were not given in the
invitation. Date of closing & opening bids not indicated in the solicitation document
 Evaluation work sheets under technical evaluation just indicated a responsive
bidder without indicating the criteria for responsiveness.
 No evidence of receipt of notification by unsuccessful bidders, reasons stated were
“2nd best evaluated” & “3rd best evaluated”.
 No evidence on file of contract management records such as progress reports.
 A visit to the site on 22/7/2014 revealed that work had just started and had exceeded
the contractual duration by a week and 2 days.
M2 Case 13
Risk: Medium
Provider : M/s Rinack Holdings Ltd
Amount: UGX 46,254,000 (0% VAT rated)
Estimate: UGX 46,503,000
Teaching Materials for Department
for Art and Industrial Design – Day
Programme
Contract 27TH November 2013
Bidding
Date:
Reference No: KU/SPLS/2013Contract Technician (John Tiga Tege)
2014/00349
Manager:
Exceptions
 Dates on the time line schedule were not indicated.
 The Evaluation Committee requested the user department to scale down their
requirements to fit in the budget implying the request was raised without due regard
to the budget and proper estimation of market prices.
M3 Case 11
Contract: printing of answer booklets for
semester one 2013/2o14 lot 1 16 pages lot
2 24 pages
Method: Domestic bidding
Reference No. KYU/SRVCS/2013/00313
& 314
Risk: Medium
Provider : M/S Kikadde & K.K printer
for lot 1 M/S Amazof enterprises ltd for
lot 2
Amount :
UGX 50,400,000 for lot 1
UGX 87,360, 000 for lot 2
VAT Exempt
UGX 120,000,000
Estimate:
3rd January 2014
Contract
Date :
Not appointed
Contract
Manager:
49
Exceptions
 Not posted onto the tender portal.
 The statement of requirements was not submitted at the time of initiation of
procurement by the user department
 No evidence of sending the copies of NoBEB to unsuccessful bidders
 Confirmation of funding was done on 10/09/2013 and only signature was
indicated with no names. Approval to procure was done on 19/09/2013 by Sam
(Assistant Bursar) after the AO’s approval.
 There was no evidence of appointment of a contract manager.
M4 Case 15
Contract: Hire of Himalaya tents and
Furniture for the 10th Graduation
Ceremony
Method: Restricted domestic bidding
Risk: Medium
Provider : Fotogenix Ltd & Deen
establishment
Amount :
UGX 57,320,000
UGX 58,000,000
Estimate:
Contract
Date :
Contract
Manager:
16th February 2014
2014/00390
Exceptions
 Approval to procure was done retrospectively on 08/10/2013 by the Bursar.
 There was no evidence of appointment of a contract manager
M5 Case 12
Contract: Hiring venue for making of
grade III final examination
Risk: Medium
Provider : M/S Kawanda
Amount :
UGX 81,830,000
UGX 79,360,000
Estimate:
07th January 2014
Contract
Date :
Not appointed
Contract
Manager:
Reference No.
KU/SERVCS/2013/14/00333
Exceptions
 Departmental plan not consolidated in the Entity’s plan.
 Terms of reference did not capture all the necessary information. They only
captured the scope. No background information, deliverables, roles and
responsibilities of the parties involved were indicated.
 No confirmation of receipt of solicitation letters by the providers.
M6 Case 33
Contract: Renovation of West – End
Dining Hall
Method: Restricted bidding
Reference No. KYU/WRKS/20132014/00678
Risk: Medium
Provider : M/S Kisinga Contraction
Company Ltd
Amount :
UGX 358,014,006
UGX 486,028,725
Estimate:
3/07/2014
Contract
Date :
Estate manager
Contract
Manager:
50
Works in progress
Exceptions
 Timelines in the procurement plan were not followed. The contract should have
been signed by 16th September 2013 but was signed 3rd July 2014.
M7 Case 2
Contract: Processing Private Applicants
for 2013-2014 Intake
Method: Direct Method
Risk: Medium
Provider : Uganda National
Examination Board
Amount :
UGX 49,305,000
UGX 49,305,000
Estimate:
26/07/2013
Contract
Date :
Not on file
Contract
Manager:
Exceptions
 No proof of delegation by AO to P. Mudaya to confirm funding
 The procurement plan stated A-level UNEB Quotations for processing A-level
selection list at UGX 45,000,000 and not processing Private Applicants for
2013-14
M8 Case 20
Contract: Departmental Exams
Requirements 1st batch for
Academic Registrar
Method: RFQ
Reference No. KU/Suppls/20132014/00577
Risk: High
Provider : M/s Jjonask Ltd – Lot 1
M/s Mult Establishment Ltd – Lot 2
Amount :
Estimate:
Contract
Date :
Contract
Manager:
Lot 1 – UGX 24,272,718
Lot 2 – UGX 22,444,190
UGX 78,701,200
19th December 2013 –Lot 1
20th December 2013 -Lot 2
Not appointed
51
Exceptions
 Data was not entered into the PPMS.
 Under examinations division, various examination materials were planned for at
UGX 180,000,000 however, it was not explicitly stated how much was for
Departmental exams requirements.
 The letter attached to the PP Form 20’s indicates that the Batch is of UGX
91,487,700 but our cast of the 13 PP Form 20’s adds up to UGX 78,701,200
 Approval to procure was done on 27th/11/13 by UB yet confirmation of funding
was made by the AO on 26th/10/2013.
 Dates were not included in the time schedules in the solicitation document
(RFQ).
 No proof of receipt of invitation by shortlisted bidders
 PP Form 209 did not include the items being approved by the Chairperson
Contracts Committee.
 No proof of issue of solicitation letters
 Price not indicated on PP Form 35 at Bid opening
 There is no evidence on file that all bidders received the notification of BEB
M9
Case 23
Contract: Supply of Drugs
for Medical Centre
Reference No:
KU/SUPLS/20132014/00802
Risk: High
Provider : M/s Mega Diagnostics and Medical
Supplies
Amount:
UGX 42,398,687
UGX 42,419,000
Estimate:
26th March 2014
Contract
Date:
Not appointed
Contract
Managers:
Some of the supplied drugs in a store
52
Exceptions
 The title of the officer who confirmed funding was not indicated. The date was
10/2/2014
 Evidence of delegated authority by the AO to Mr. Madaya for confirming
availability of funds
 There was no procurement activity schedule
 The 17 items were not indicated in the evaluation report
 There was no evidence of receipt of NoBEB by the bidders was noted.
 On 4/7/2014, M/s Mega Diagnostics & Medical Supplies Ltd communicated to the
University Secretary that some items on the LPO were not supplied since they were
not available on the market (NDA technical issues, Manufacturers phasing out
certain molecules and suppliers winding out pharmacies). Credit note of UGX
712,692 was submitted by the provider.
M10 Case 6
Contract: Teaching materials for
department of Physics
Method: RDB
Risk: High
Provider : M/s Palin Corporation
Amount :
USD 7,702.67 (VAT
Exempt)
UGX 61,908,500
Estimate:
5th February 2014
Contract
Date :
Not appointed
Contract
Manager:
Reference No. KU/SUPLS/20132014/00126
Exceptions
 Approval to procure was done retrospectively on 29th July 2013 after the
confirmation of availability of funds by the AO on 27th July 2013.
 No evidence of issue & receipt of invitation letters
 The PP form 209 did not indicate what had been approved by the CC
Chairman on behalf of CC
 No evidence of signing ethical code by Brian Mugambwa -Assistant
Procurement Officer
 No evidence on file of appointment of a contract manager.
 There were contradictions in the solicitation document e.g. ITB 14.7 in
solicitation document (Bid data sheet) stated prices quoted by bidder shall be
valid for 90 working days & ITB 20.1 in solicitation document stated bid
validity period shall be 120 working days.
M11 Case 1
Contract: Printing of Answer Booklets
for Grade 111 Examinations
Reference No. KU/SVCS/2013-14/00009
Risk: High
Provider : Papemco Enterprises Ltd
Amount :
UGX 42,000,000
UGX 45,000,000
Estimate:
10th September 2013
Contract
Date :
Not appointed
Contract
Manager:
53
Exceptions
 Printing Answer booklets was in the procurement plan but it was not explicitly
stated as printing answer booklets for grade III examinations.
 Data was not entered into PPMS.
 On the BEB notice a fourth bidder was listed yet nothing on file indicates their
participation i.e. M/S Daflronnie General Services
 Lydia Bukenya (PA PDU) did not sign the ethical code of conduct
 18% VAT Inclusive in the bidders price and yet it was supposed to be Zero
rated supplies
Low Risk Cases
L1 Case 29
Contract: supply of materials for
Renovation and plumbing of Extension
Block of Apollo House
Method: Request for Quotations
Reference No. KYU/SUPLS/13/14/01520
Risk: High
Provider : M/S Keisha Trading Ltd
Amount :
UGX 45,136,000
UGX 40,211,000
Estimate:
Contract
Date :
Contract
Manager:
30th June 2014
Dr. Patrick Ogwok (Ag.
Head of Dept FPT
Materials at the Site for extension of Apollo house. These were delivered on time. The
contract had been signed on 27th June 2014 and physical verification done on 22nd July
2014
Exceptions
 On the issue of method of procurement used, the bid evaluation report indicates that
the Contracts Committee approved open domestic bidding however, on the BEB
notice, it indicated the method as RFQ
 It is assumed that the Accounting Officer signed however, the date and name of the
signee was not indicated on the PP Form at initiation..
 No signature and date of the Secretary Contracts Committee for approvals of
Method, solicitation document, shortlist & Evaluation Committee.
 No reasons for being the 2& 3 best Evaluated bidders on file
54
APPENDIX B: ENTITY BUDGET AND PERFORMANCE FOR THE FY 2013/2014
Table 7: Entity Budget and Performance for the FY 2013/2014
Fund Sources
Amount (UGX)
2013/2014
Central Government Transfer
Non-Tax Revenues
Donor funded Projects
Total
Total Procurement Budget for the FY 2013/2014
Value of contracts audited
Procurement budget as % age of overall Entity’s
budget
Audited as percentage of Total Entity Budget
Audited as percentage of Procurement Budget
21,541,073,625
44,712,769,936
511,343,500
66,765,187,061
4,777,894,840
3,219,422,334
7.16%
4.82%
67%
Source: KYU accounts records.
55
APPENDIX C: RISK RATING CRITERIA
HIGH RISK
Relates to but not limited to significant Law & Regulatory violations such as:Area
Implication
Planning: Lack of or failure to procure This implies emergencies and use of the
within the approved plan
direct procurement method which affects
competition and value for money.
Bidding
Process:
Use
of This implies use of less competitive methods
wrong/inappropriate procurement methods, which affects transparency, accountability
failure to seek Contracts Committee and value for money.
approvals and usurping the powers of the
PDU.
Evaluation: Use of inappropriate evaluation This implies financial loss caused by
methodologies or failure to conduct awarding contracts at higher prices or
evaluation.
shoddy work caused by failure to
recommend award to a responsive bidder.
Record Keeping: Missing procurement files This implies that one cannot ascertain the
and missing key records on the files namely; audit trail namely; whether there was
solicitation document, submitted bids, competition and fairness in the procurement
evaluation report and contract.
process.
Fraud/forgery: Falsification of Documents
This implies lack of transparency and value
for money.
Contract Management: Payment for This implies financial loss since there has
shoddy work or work not delivered
been no value for money for the funds spent
and the services have not been received by
the intended beneficiaries
MODERATE RISK
Relates to but not limited to substantial Policy & Procedure exceptions such as:Area
Implication
Planning:
Lack
of
initiation
of
procurements and confirmation of funds.
Bidding Process: Deviations from standard
procedures namely bidding periods,
standard formats, use of PP Forms and
records of issue and receipts of bids, usage
of non-pre-qualified firms and splitting
procurement requirements.
Procurement Structures: Lack of
procurement structures
This implies committing the Entity without
funds thereby causing domestic arrears.
This implies lack of efficiency, standardization
and avoiding competition.
This implies lack of independence of functions
and powers and interference in the
procurement process.
Record Keeping: Missing Contracts This implies that one cannot ascertain the audit
Committee records and incomplete contract trail namely; whether the necessary approvals
management records.
were obtained in a procurement process.
This leads to unjustified contract amendment
Contract and Contract Management:
Failure to nominate contract managers, and variations which lead to unjustified
56
failure to seek the Solicitor General’s delayed contract completion and lack of value
approval for contracts above UGX. 50 for money. Bidders are not given the right of
million and lack of notices of Best appeal.
Evaluated Bidders.
LOW RISK
Relates to but not limited to minor or inconsequential procedural omission such as: Area
Implication
Planning: Lack of procurement reference This leads to failure to track the procurements
numbers.
which leads to poor record keeping.
Bidding Process: Not signing the Ethical This leads to failure to declare conflict of
Code of Conduct
interest and lack of transparency.
SATISFACTORY
Relates to following laid down procurement procedures and guidelines and no significant
deviation is identified during the conduct of the procurement process based on the records
available at the time.
57
APPENDIX D: SAMPLE LIST FOR FY 2013/14
Procurement
Reference
Number
1.
KYU/Suppls/2 Printing
Of
013Booklets
2014/00009
KYU/Srvcs/20 Processing
13applicants
2014/00018
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Kyu/supls/2013
-2014/00595
KYU/Srvcs/20
132014/00097
KU/Suppls/20
132014/00225
Subject of Procurement
Method
of Provider
Procurement
Date of Award Market Price Contract value
of Contract
of
the (Currency and
Procurement
Amount)
Rating
S/N
O.
Answer RDB
M/s
Papemco 10/09/2013
Enterprises Ltd
45,000,000
42,000,000 M11
Private RDB
M/s UNEB
16/07/2013
49,305,000
49,305,000
M/s Gemuru
Enterprises ltd
14th/05/2014
18,136,000
18,065,000
Direct
Procurement
M/s UNEB
02/08/2013
42,525,000
42,525,000
Direct
Procurement
M/s MFI Office
Solution
04/09/2013
17,000,000
17,972,591
RFQ
M/s
Palin 25/11/2013
Corporation
UGX
61,908,500
USD 7,702.67
M10
Direct
Procurement
M/s Bunyonyi 23/09/2013
Safaris Ltd
USD 8,690
USD 7,662.00
H22
Direct
Procurement
M/s Smith
Ouzman
42,000,000
GBP 13,650
RFQ
M/s
in-house training materials
for department of food
processing technology
Printing
of
PTC
promotional and final
Exams for 2013
Consumables for DP line
110 copier for Academic
(Toner 20pcs & Staple
cartridges 10pcs)
KYU/Frmwrk/ Teaching Materials for the
2013Department of Physic
2014/00126
(1stSemester 13/14)
KYU/Srvcs/20 Air Ticks for Korean
13Professors
2014/00129
KU/Suppls/20 Academic
Transcript
13blacks
for
Academic
2014/00232
Registrar
KU/Suppls/20 Teaching materials for
RFQ
M7
H4
H27
H9
& 19/09/2013
H5
Gemuru 16/10/2013
58
50,480,000
19,773,500
M11
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Procurement
Reference
Number
132014/00192
KU/Suppls/20
132014/00293
KU/Suppls/20
132014/00313
KU/Suppls/20
132014/00314
KU/Srvcs/201
3-2014/00333
Food processing Dep’t
Enterprises Ltd
Subject and Returning Direct
envelops for Academic Procurement
Registrar
Answer booklet -16 pages ODB
for Academic Registrar
M/s Smith
Ouzman
Answer booklet – 24 ODB
pages
for Academic
Registrar
Venue for marking Grade RDB
III Exams
KU/Suppls/20
132014/00349
KU/
Srvcs
/20132014/00368b
KU/
Srvcs
/20132014/00390
KU/Srvcs/201
3-2013/00402
Instructional materials for RDB
Day students for Arts and
Design
Internetworking materials Restricted
University Library Centre Bidding
KU/Suppls/20
Method
of Provider
Procurement
Hire of Himalaya Tents RFQ
for
10th
Graduation
Ceremony
Hire of tents (VIP ,1st Aid RFQ
Deans
bands
&
DOM)Tents for the 10th
Graduation
Teaching materials for RDB
of Contract
of
the (Currency and
Procurement
Amount)
Rating
S/N
O.
H16
£ 18,000
£ 16,425
H23
M/s
Kikadde 4/12/2013
and K.K Printers
64,000,000
50,400,000
M3
M/s
Amazof 4/12/2013
Enterprises Ltd
120,000,000
87,360,000
M3
M/s
4/12/2013
KawandaSecond
ary School
M/s
Rinack 25/11/13
Holdings Ltd
79,360,000
81,830,000
M/s
Teltec 16/12/2013
Investment Ltd
49,980,000
M/s
Ltd
Fotogenix 5/02/2014
48,000,000
M/s
Ltd
Fotogenix 5/02/2014
M/s
& 17/09/2013
M5
46,305,000
46,254,000
M2
47,172,000
H6
57,320,000
M4
Lamac 16/12/2013
59
30,000,000
37,288,000
32,700,000
33,535,000
M4
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Procurement
Reference
Number
132014/00463
KU/Suppls/20
132014/00422
KU/Suppls/20
132014/00340
KU/Srvcs/201
3-2014/00530
KU/Suppls/20
132014/00577
Civil
and
Building
Engineering
Desktop Computers & RFQ
Laptops for e- Kampus
Uganda Ltd
Grade III Results lips and
teaching certificates
blank(pre –signed )
Filling of pot holes in the
University
Departmental
Exams
st
Requirements 1 batch for
Academic Registrar
M/s Smith &
Ouzman Ltd
KU/Srvcs/201
3-2014/00677
KU/Suppls/20
132014/00703
KU/Suppls/20
132014/00802
KU/Suppls/20
132014/00851
Method
of Provider
Procurement
Direct
Procurement
RFQ
RFQ
Computers & Laptops for RFQ
the university Library and
University Bursar
H1
M/s
Mobile 29/01/2014
Computers Ltd
M/s
Dewans
Services Ltd
RFQ
M/s Jjionask Ltd
Lot1
M/s
Mult
Establishment
Ltd
Lot 2
Re- print of DEPE Request for M/s
Gamut
modules
Quotations
Investments Ltd
Text Books for University RFQ
M/s Gustro Ltd
library
Purchase of Medical drugs
of Contract
of
the (Currency and
Procurement
Amount)
7/10/2013
81,156,512
£10,040
H20
£8,886.40
H12
16/12/2013
43,000,000
40,937,551.2
19TH/12/2013
78,701,200
24,272,718
H14
22,444,190
M8
10/01/2014
5/05/2014
M/s
Mega 26/03/2014
Diagnostics &
Medical
Supplies Ltd
M/s Net soft 5/05/2014
Consulting
Services
Rating
S/N
O.
60
7,770,000
27,250,000
79,644,150
60,971,360
42,419,000
42,398,687
H3
H13
M9
37,500,000
37,048,000
6,000,000
H2
Procurement
Reference
Number
25.
KU/Srvcs/201
3-2014/00932
Kyu/Suppls
/20132014/01051
Works at Mackey house
RFP
No 13
Consultancy Services for ODB
Designs for renovation &
Construction of Building
complexes at Kyambogo
University
26.
27.
28.
29.
Method
of Provider
Procurement
of Contract
of
the (Currency and
Procurement
Amount)
M/s Dewans
9/05/2014
Services Ltd
Lot
1:
M/s 3rd/7/2014
Oubuntu
Consulting Ltd
Lot 2:
M/s
Oubuntu
Consulting Ltd
Lot
3:
M/s
Technology
Consults Ltd
Lot
4:
M/s
Technology
Consults Ltd
Lot
5:
M/s
MBW
Consulting
Lot 6: M/s Lliso
Consulting
61,462,247
59,079,768
M1
120,000,000
117,500,000
H17
38,000,000
250,862,400
200,161,800
297,425,000
Kyu/Suppls
/20132014/01190
Kyu/Suppls
/20132014/01191
Examination Booklets for RFQ
Exams 16pages
M/s Horizon line 23/04/2014
Ltd
64,000,000
103,130,000
58,800,000
Examination Booklets for RFQ
Exams 24pages
M/s
Amazon 23/04/2014
Enterprises
76,738,920
156,800,000
1.1
materials for renovations and
plumbing of extension block
Ms. Keisha
Trading Ltd
Kyu/supl
s/2013-
RFP
25th May 2014
61
Rating
S/N
O.
H24
H18
40,211,000
45,136,000
L1
Procurement
Reference
Number
2014/015
20
of Apollo house
Kyu/Srv
cs/20132014/10
51/7
consultancy services for
design of research and
industrial linkages for
science and technology
incubation centre.
Eats and Drinks for the
10th graduation
30.
1.2
31.
KU/Frmwrk/2
0132014/00414
32.
33.
34.
35.
KU/SUPLS/2
0132014/00408
Kyu/Supls
/20132014/00678
Kyu/ Supls
/20132014/01098
Method
of Provider
Procurement
of Contract
of
the (Currency and
Procurement
Amount)
ODB
M/s
Infrastructural
Design Forum
Ltd
21st /05/2014
Framework
Contract
(ODB)
M/s Jim
5/02/2014
Enterprises Ltd
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 4
M/s Twins
General
Agencies Lot 3
M/S A & S 18th February
Electronics Ltd
2014
Hire of address system for RFQ
the
10th
graduation
ceremony
Renovation of west end
Restricted
Dining Hall
bidding
Installation, configuration
and training on atomic
absorption
spectrophotometer
Kyu/WRKS/2 Renovation works to the
012- building of lands and
2013/00610 architectural studies
RFQ
120,000,000
124,097,000
9,554,000
H25
4,000,000
6,702,400
M/s Kisinga
11th June 2014
Construction Co.
Ltd
M/s African
11th June 2014
Technologies
Ltd
486,028,752
358,014,006
32,570,000
31,789,300
18th February
2013
36,567,905
36,567,905
M/s Malcolm
Investments Ltd
62
H15
3,000,000
2,800,000
2,100,000
11,210,000
Period of
start/
completion
Rating
S/N
O.
H28
M6
H26
H7
Procurement
Reference
Number
Method
of Provider
Procurement
36.
KU/Suppls/20
132014/00664
Instructional materials
dep’t of Mechanical
Production Engineering
RFQ
37.
KU/Srvcs/201
3-2014/00357
Maintenance Of MV UAJ
084 X
Direct
Procurement
38.
39.
40.
KYU/Frmwrk/ Cleaning materials
20132014/00004a
KU/Srvcs/201 Routine maintenance and
3-2014/00168 servicing of m/v UAJ 478
X
KU/Frmwrk/2 Tyres for four university
013double cabins
2014/00511
M/s Rinack
Holding Ltd
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 4
M/s Mukab
General Supplies
Ltd Lot 3
M/s Victoria
Motors Ltd
Framework
Contract
(ODB)
RFP
M/s Jomat Ltd
Framework
Contract
(ODB)
of Contract
of
the (Currency and
Procurement
Amount)
18th March
2014
2,265,000
12,094,000
21,427,000
9,882,000
19,988,000
5,228,840
5,158,370
Rating
S/N
O.
H11
H10
21/07/13
8,115,000
12,044,000
H21
M/s Wamuco
Motors (U) Ltd
25/09/2013
2,656,180
2,834,832
H19
M/s Arrow
centre Ltd
22/10/2012
7,552,000
7,552,000
H8
63

Audit Rpt - Kyambogo University For FY 2013-2014

Transcription

Similar documents

Printable Brochure

TRIMEDX-1864 TriMedx Procurement Sales Sheet FINAL.indd

Online Casino Games Mega Jack

procurement news - Caltech Procurement Services

easyPurchase™

Isocele – 04 – December 2013

WELCOME TO VARIOSYSTEMS

3-2-2015 Meet The Buyer - Aberdeenshire

SEPTA Silverliner V Procurement.indd

Isu dan cabaran dalam pelaksanaan Rancangan Malaysia dan