pposed to be spent on each center is US$1.2 million but the average cost of each of five finished/constructed centers amounted to US$1.8 million, totaling US$9 million. The balance of US$3 million from the grant was spent on paying salaries to Council employees who were in arrears. The following information was established concerning the centers constructed: Only three of the centers met the design specificatio
The Council received a grant of US$12 million for the construction of ten community centers, one each in the ten communities under the control of the Council. This is part of a grant from a donor received by the Ministry. The Council as a sub recipient signed an agreement committing to adhere to the grant conditions. The maximum amount that was supposed to be spent on each center is US$1.2 million but the average cost of each of five finished/constructed centers amounted to US$1.8 million, totaling US$9 million. The balance of US$3 million from the grant was spent on paying salaries to Council employees who were in arrears.
The following information was established concerning the centers constructed:
- Only three of the centers met the design specifications and were going to be commissioned for use. The works on the other two centers were
- The award of the contract to build the centers was not done through competitive budding contrary to the grant conditions and agreement. Award was through single sourcing and the basis for doing so was that the contractor selected was going to be cheaper because he is based within the district and needed no mobilization funds.
Question: Using the information in the scenario, explain with the aid of computation and or example(s) value for money audit.
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps
