|Project administration of Road Fund is a mess|
|Friday, 19 October 2012 15:27|
WILLEMSTAD — The project administration of Institution Road Fund Curaçao is a mess, according to a report from the Soab. No project dossier can be found from three of the five projects selected by the institution. It regards the projects ‘Repair of dirt roads’, ‘Solar LED reflectors’ and ‘Road Construction Pariba 2e x’ with a budget of 400,000, 194,000 and a small 2 million guilders respectively.
The Soab checked the presence of the following documents: authorization from the Institution Road Fund Curaçao, quotations, specifications, documentation on contracts (selection, evaluation and awarding), pre- and subsequent calculation, concluded agreements and performance confirmations.
According to project leader H. Basilio, the project dossiers are with the department Support, but the latter indicated this was not the case. This is actually the project leader’s responsibility, according to the report.
The other two projects (‘Rec. Mamayaweg’, budget more than 1.5 million, and ‘Embellishment city illumination’, budget 150,000 guilders) from project leader G. Rosina appear to be in order apart from the project dossier missing a pre- and subsequent calculation.
“The fund certainly fails to keep a proper project dossier up to date with all important source documents”, the Soab concluded.
The Soab further concluded ‘that projects are not kept up to date in a proper project administration. At the most, the project manager of UOOW has an (Excel) overview of the budget balance. As a result there is no clear insight into the implementation and progress of the projects. The project administration is to clearly show that the project is carried out conform the budget and the project plan (including changes). It is also important that the receipts and expenses show which goods and services were delivered and that these expenses for a certain project are accounted for.”
The figures from the draft annual accounts for the years 2007 up to and including 2011 show ‘there has been a strong fluctuation due to the annual swing in revenues from road tax and the costs for road maintenance’. It further appears that at the end of 2011 the liquid assets was 161 percent and the solvability 38 percent, which is ‘very acceptable’, according to the Soab.
According to internal information, in the past maintenance plans were drawn up by a team consisting of the heads of departments and the management of DOW (currently UOOW). “The manner in which the maintenance plans were drawn up is very obscure”, said the institution. “During the implementation of our work we didn’t receive recent (long term) or annual maintenance plans.”
Apparently no clear line is followed in the initiating and implementing of projects. There are several bottlenecks, for instance, lack of transparency with the projects as regards choice, priority and interim changes. There’s no clarity in the guidelines for public and private contracts. There’s a lack of transparency and clarity on the roles and tasks of the Business Department as regards drawing up specifications, pre- and subsequent calculations, requesting quotations and implementation of contracts. There is also a question of the team leader of the Business Department wearing two hats, considering he’s also the project manager for most of the large maintenance projects.
It also appears that with issuing an authorization from the board of the road fund if a project can be carried out is based merely on a very global description of the project and not on thorough knowledge of the project. Neither is it determined whether the project concerned is included in the annual plan.