The Republic of Uganda

A VALUE FOR MONEY AUDIT REPORT ON REHABILITATION AND MAINTENANCE OF FEEDER ROADS IN UGANDA: A CASE STUDY OF HOIMA, KUMI, MASINDI,

MUKONO AND WAKISO DISTRICTS

Prepared by

Office of the Auditor General

P.O. Box 7083

Kampala

FEBRUARY, 2012

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND PICTURES..................................................................................... iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................... v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ vi

CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background to the audit .................................................................................. 1

1.2 Motivation ...................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Description of the audit area ........................................................................... 2

CHAPTER 2 ............................................................................................................................................. 7

2.0 AUDIT METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................... 7

2.1 Sampling ........................................................................................................ 7

2.2 Data collection methods .................................................................................. 7

2.3 Data analysis .................................................................................................. 8

CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................................. 9

3.0 SYSTEMS AND PROCESS DESCRIPTION .............................................................. 9

3.1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF KEY PLAYERS .............................................. 9

3.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION .................................................................................... 10

CHAPTER 4 ........................................................................................................................................... 15

4.0 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... 15

4.1 PLANNING AND BUDGETING .......................................................................... 15

4.1.1 Use of RAMPS in planning and budgeting ........................................................ 15

4.1.2 Preparation of work plans for rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads .... 21

4. 1.3 Use of Annual District Road Work plans in execution of works .......................... 23

4.2 EXECUTION OF REHABILIATION AND MAINTENANCE WORKS ......................... 24

4.2.1 Implementation of road works as per work plan schedules ............................... 24

iii

4.2.2 Adherence to Procurement laws, regulations and guidelines. ............................ 30

4.2.3 Availability of essential road equipment ........................................................... 34

4.2.4 Funding of district feeder roads rehabilitation and maintenance works .............. 38

4.3.1 Inspection and supervision of road works ........................................................ 42

4.3.2 Monitoring and Evaluation of rehabilitation and maintenance of road works ...... 45

Appendices I - VII........................................................................................................III

iv

LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND PICTURES

Pages

Table 1: Funding of feeder roads in the sampled districts 15

Table 2: Ranking of roads in various road conditions 22

Table 3: Roads ranked in various conditions in order of priority interventions 26

Table 4: Roads rehabilitated/maintained without RAMP recommendations 27

Table 5: Roads rehabilitated/maintained without RAMP recommendations 28

Table 6: District compliance levels with RAMP recommendations 29

Table 7 (a): Average District Project delays 37

Table 7 (b): District delays (days) in the procurement process 38

Table 8: Amount spent on delayed road projects 39

Table 9: District Procurement Compliance levels 42

Table 10: District equipment inventory levels and status 46

Table 11: Releases to Regional Mechanical Workshops by URF and MoW&T 47

Table 12: District feeder road budgets, releases, expenditure and absorption rates 50

Table 13: District and departmental average delays in receipt of funds 51

Table 14: Planned and actual quarterly M & E visits conducted 57

Table 15: District actual expenditure on M & E activities 58

Picture .1: On-going rehabilitation works on Mukongoro-Kamacha-Bukedea Road, Kumi

District 36

Pictures .2 & 3: Old and abandoned culverts at Mukura-Ngora road in Kumi district 37

Pictures 4 & 5: Old and grounded equipment in Mukono district 46

Picture.6: Unsatisfactory road works 55

v

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AFOSAI–E African Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (English Speaking)

CAO Chief Administrative Officer

DE District Engineer

DP District Planner

IPFs Indicative Planning Figures

INTOSAI International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions

MOFPED Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development

MOLG Ministry of Local Government

MoLG Ministry of Local Governments

MoW&T Ministry of Works and Transport

OAG Office of the Auditor General

PRDP Peace Recovery and Development Plan

PS Permanent Secretary

RAMPS Rehabilitation and Maintenance Planning System

UGX Ugandan Shilling Currency

UNRA Uganda National Roads Authority

URF Uganda Road Fund

vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

The Ministry of Local Government is charged with the responsibility of providing strategic

management and oversight functions to district authorities, such as: policy formulation,

regulation, planning and monitoring of district performance in many government

programmes, such as: area of the maintenance and rehabilitation of feeder roads.

District authorities are responsible for the maintenance and rehabilitation of feeder roads in

their respective geographical locations.

A total of Shs.18.8 billion was spent on the maintenance and rehabilitation of feeder roads in

the five (5) districts selected for the study for four the financial years covering the period

from 2007/2008 to 2010/2011.

Despite substantial investment by the Government, the status of the feeder roads in the

districts remained undesirable. Many roads have potholes, overgrown grass on road

shoulders, broken culverts and clogged drainage systems.

It is against this background that the Office of the Auditor General decided to conduct a

Value for Money audit to ascertain the challenges facing the management of feeder roads

and to analyze their underlying causes; and finally, to make recommendations to address

them.

Audit Scope

The audit focused on the aspects of whether the rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder

roads by district authorities in Uganda were adequately planned and budgeted for,

implemented timely and satisfactory quality of works attained in the four financial years from

2007/2008 to 2010/2011. A case study was conducted in five district authorities, namely:

Hoima, Masindi, Kumi, Mukono and Wakiso.

vii

Key Audit Findings

The following audit findings were noted:-

Use of RAMPS in Planning and Budgeting

It was observed that, 65% (13 roads) of the twenty roads selected in the five districts visited

under the case study had RAMPs recommendations made. Out of the 13 roads with RAMPS

recommendations made, only 62% (8 roads) had the recommendations adhered to. Non

preparation of RAMP and non adherence to RAMP recommendations during rehabilitation and

maintenance of some roads, led to non-scientific cost estimates being used in the planning

process.

Implementation of Road works as per Work plan Schedules

It was established that only 3 (15%) roads in the districts of Hoima, Mukono and Wakiso out

of the 20 selected roads from the five districts were completed as per work plan schedule.

Seventeen (85%) roads were not maintained as per work plan schedules. As a result of the

delayed road works, the public did not receive the intended benefits in time despite

government (districts) spending a total of shs.3,168,711,204 on projects

Adherence to Procurement Laws, Regulations and Guidelines

A sample of 20 roads selected in the five districts was subjected to assessment criteria to

test if all the procurement procedures were followed in the procurement cycle. It was noted

that out of an average of 84 procurement procedures, only 49 were complied with, resulting

in an average district compliance level of only 58% in all the districts visited. Non-compliance

with procurement procedures delayed the procurement process, which, subsequently,

affected the timely implementation of road works.

Availability of Essential Road Equipment

It was established that none of the five districts visited had a full set of essential road

equipment as required. The district inventory of the road equipment ranged between 33% (5

out of 15) for Hoima district to 87% (13 out of 15) for Masindi and Mukono districts. The

failure by government to allocate the requisite number of road equipment to districts,

coupled with constant equipment breakdown denied districts the minimum capacity required

to rehabilitate and maintain their planned feeder road works using the relatively cheap

option of force on account as compared to outsourcing.

viii

Monitoring and Evaluation of Rehabilitation and Maintenance of Road works

It was established that all the five districts visited did not have M&E work plans showing

scheduled M&E visits to be carried out and, consequently, quarterly M&E visits pertaining to

rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads were not conducted as expected. Only 21 out

of 80 (26%) of expected reports for technical monitoring and 7 out of 80 (9%) expected

reports for political monitoring teams were availed to audit. The quality of the road works

executed were neither monitored nor evaluated as expected and, as a result, no immediate

corrective actions were taken, thus affecting the attainment of satisfactory works.

Key Recommendations:

Use of RAMPS in Planning and Budgeting

In order to attain proper planning, which is in accordance with District Road Works

Planning Manuals, districts, in conjunction with URF and MoW&T, should encourage

continuous use of scientific methods to determine the cost of rehabilitation and

maintenance of feeder roads.

The District Engineers (Des) who lack knowledge and skills in the use of scientific

methods of determining rehabilitation and maintenance costs should be trained.

Implementation of Road works as per Work plan Schedules

The implementation of rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads activities should

be according to work plan schedules so as to ensure timely delivery of intended services.

Uganda Road Fund (U.R.F) together with the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic

Development (MoFPED) should ensure that funds for rehabilitation and maintenance of

feeder roads are released in time to enable districts to execute their road works in

accordance with their work plan schedules.

Adherence to Procurement Laws, Regulations and Guidelines

Districts should fully comply with all the provisions in the Public Procurement and

Disposal of Pubic Assets Authority (PPDA) Act, local government regulations and

guidelines to ensure proper identification, planning, budgeting and execution of

rehabilitation and maintenance activities in an economic and efficient manner.

ix

District Procurement and Disposal Units (PDUs) should give proper procurement guidance

in accordance with PPDA Act to district engineering departments on matters concerning

procurement of road contractors.

Availability of Essential Road Equipment

Government should prioritize the allocation of a full set of road equipment to districts,

which will enable them to carry out their planned rehabilitation and maintenance

activities.

District engineering departments should always conduct timely repair assessment reviews

of their road equipment and communicate their repair needs to regional mechanical

workshops in a timely manner.

Monitoring and Evaluation of Rehabilitation and Maintenance of Road works

Districts should ensure that M&E activities are planned, budgeted for and

implemented as per work plan schedules.

District engineering departments should ensure that the recommendations made

by M&E teams are implemented and follow-ups made to attain satisfactory road

works.

1

CHAPTER 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Audit

The Ministry of Local Government is charged with the responsibility of providing

strategic management and oversight functions to district authorities, such as: policy

formulation, regulation, planning and monitoring of district performance in many

government programmes, such as: the maintenance and rehabilitation of feeder

roads.

District authorities are responsible for the maintenance and rehabilitation of feeder

roads in their respective geographical locations. In executing the above

responsibilities districts are facilitated mainly through Central Government Grants and

various programmes set up by Government through which funds are channelled to

rehabilitate and maintain roads. These programmes include: Poverty Alleviation Funds

(PAF), which was later substituted for the Uganda Road Fund (URF) in the financial

year 2009/2010; Local Government Development Programme (LGDP), which was also

later substituted for the Local Government Management Support Development

Programme (LGMSD); Peace Recovery and Development Plan (PRDP); Equalization

grants and development partners (donors) such as: Danish International

development agency (DANIDA)

1.2 Motivation

The Government of Uganda has identified rural feeder roads as an area with a great

potential for eradicating rural mass poverty1. The feeder roads network is presently

estimated to comprise 22,500 km of mainly unpaved roads2 . Over 60% of the road

network in Uganda is extremely bad, rendering some of it impassable. This affects

the transportation of goods and services to markets3.

A total of shs.18.8 billion was spent on the maintenance and rehabilitation of feeder

roads in the five (5) districts selected for the study for the four financial years

covering the period from 2007/2008 to 2010/2011. Despite substantial investment by

the Government, the status of the feeder roads in the districts remained undesirable. 1 http://www.roadfund.ug/Projects/DistrictRoads.pdf 2 Uganda Road Fund Performance statement on road maintenance plan and expenditure programme (Page 54) 3 Document sans-titre- State of District Feeder Roads in Uganda

2

Many roads have potholes, overgrown grass on road shoulders, broken culverts and

poor drainage.

The attainment of development initiatives, such as: Millennium Development Goals

(MDG) of ending poverty and hunger, universal education for all by 2015, gender

equality, child health, maternal health, combating HIV/AIDS and environmental

sustainability; without a proper feeder road network in local authorities remains

hampered.

It is against this background that the Office of the Auditor General decided to conduct

a Value for Money audit to ascertain the challenges facing the management feeder

roads and to analyze their underlying causes; and, finally, to make recommendations

to address them.

1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AUDIT AREA

1.3.1 Mandate

The mandate of Local Governments in Uganda is derived from Chapter Eleven (Local

Governments) of the Constitution of Uganda (1995) which provides the principles and

structures of local governments, their finances, human functions and general

administrative functions. This mandate is further amplified in the Local Government

Act Cap 243 (LGA, 2007) Section 30 which gives the functions, powers and services

of a district to plan and administer service delivery to the citizens.

On the other hand, the Ministry of Local Governments (MoLG) is mandated by the

Local Government Act Cap 243 (LGA, 2007) Sections 95-98 to carry out a number of

responsibilities as follows:-

To inspect, monitor, and where necessary offer technical advice/assistance,

support supervision and training to all Local Governments.

To coordinate and advise Local Governments for purposes of harmonization and

advocacy.

To act as a Liaison/Linkage Ministry with respect to other Central Government

Ministries and Departments, Parastatals, Private Sector, Regional and International

Organizations.

3

To research, analyze, develop and formulate national policies on all taxes, fees,

levies, rates for Local Governments.

Line ministries and other state organs and in this particular case, Ministry of Works

and Transport and URF, are also mandated under section 98 of the Local Government

Act Cap 243 (LGA, 2007) to inspect and monitor local governments.

1.3.2 Vision

The Vision of the Ministry of Local Government is “To have a democratic,

participatory, decentralized local government system that can sustain development

and deliver services efficiently and effectively to the people”

1.3.3 Mission

The Mission of the Ministry of Local Government is “To coordinate, support and

advocate for Local Governments for sustainable, efficient and effective service

delivery in the decentralized system of governance”

1.3.4 Objectives/Functions

Ministry of Local Government:

The Objectives of the Ministry of Local Government are to:

Ensure that local governments deliver services to the population in an efficient and

effective manner;

Ensure compliance with statutory requirements, national standards and policies by

local governments;

Build the capacity of local government councils, necessary for efficient and

effective service delivery.

Districts:

The detailed functions of the district authorities are specified in the second schedule,

part 1 of the Local Government Act Cap 243 (LGA, 2007), which include the provision

of services in areas, such as: Medical & Health, Education, Water and Roads. On the

provision of the road services, which is the subject matter of this audit, section 4 of

the schedule specifically provides that the construction, rehabilitation and

4

maintenance of roads, which are not under Central Government, is a responsibility of

Local Governments (Districts).

1.3.5 Funding

The funding of the district feeder roads activities is mainly through Central

Government Grants and from various programmes set up to rehabilitate and maintain

feeder roads. These include: Poverty Alleviation Funds (PAF), which was substituted

for the Uganda Road Fund (URF) in the FY 2008/2009, the Local Government

Development Programme (LGDP), which was also substituted for the Local

Government Management Support Development Programme (LGMSD) in FY 2009/10,

Peace Recovery and Development Plan (PRDP), Equalization grants and development

partners such as Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA).

Table 1: Showing funding of feeder roads to the sampled districts, for the

years 2007/2008 to 2010/2011

DITRICT AMOUNT (SHS)

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 TOTAL

Hoima 510,431,329 374,218,077 1,173,793,757 630,388,997 2,688,832,160

Kumi 485,703,697 1,584,826,390 1,107,791,956 794,894,148 3,973,216,191

Masindi 406,760,587 375,481,568 1,729,244,399 913,613,548 3,425,100,102

Mukono 509,630,440 602,883,521 1,482,552,739 566,711,886 3,161,778,586

Wakiso 1,039,786,410 799,557,932 1,288,530,875 2,457,916,533 5,585,791,750

TOTAL 2,952,312,463 3,736,967,488 6,781,913,726 5,363,525,112 18,834,718,789

Source: Audited accounts for respective districts for the years 2007/2008 to

2010/2011

The funding for the district/feeder roads rehabilitation and maintenance in the

selected districts increased by 55% from UGX 2.95 billion in FY 2007/2008 to UGX

5.36 billion in the FY 2010/2011 as reflected in the above table.

5

1.3.6 Organization Structure

MoLG

The ministry of Local Government is responsible for the inspection, monitoring and

coordination of all activities in district authorities as laid out in part IX of the Local

Government Act 1997. Politically, the MoLG is headed by a Cabinet Minister, assisted

by one (1) Minister of State. The Permanent Secretary (PS) is the overall technical

supervisor and accounting officer of the Ministry. Below the PS are two (2) Directors

namely: the Director of Local Governments Administration and the Director Local

Government Inspection.

Districts

Politically, Local Council Five (LC 5) Chairpersons are the heads of the Districts

assisted by Secretaries of Standing Committees of the District Council (DC).

Technically the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

of the District assisted by the Deputy CAO. There are various heads of departments

including: head of works and technical services, head of natural resources, head of

finance, head of production and head of education. The works and technical services

department is the one responsible for rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads.

Details are shown in Appendix I

1.4 Audit Objectives

The overall audit objective of the study was to assess whether district authorities in

Uganda rehabilitated and maintained feeder roads economically, efficiently and

effectively. The specific objectives of the audit were:-

I. To assess whether districts adequately planned and budgeted for feeder roads

rehabilitation and maintenance activities.

II. To assess whether planned activities were implemented on time.

III. To assess whether works for rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads were

inspected and supervised.

IV. To assess whether works for rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads were

monitored and evaluated.

6

1.5 Audit Scope

The audit focused on the aspects of whether rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder

roads by district authorities in Uganda were adequately planned and budgeted for,

implemented timely and satisfactory quality of works attained for four financial years

from 2007/2008 to 2010/2011. A case study was conducted in five district authorities

namely; Hoima, Masindi, Kumi, Mukono and Wakiso.

7

CHAPTER 2

2.0 AUDIT METHODOLOGY

The audit was conducted in accordance with the International Organization of

Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) performance auditing standards and guidelines

as set out in the VFM audit manual of the Office of the Auditor General.

Those standards require that the audit should be planned in a manner which ensures

that an audit of high quality is carried out in an economic, efficient and effective way

and in a timely manner.

2.1 Sampling

The selection was based on levels of funding as per U.R.F releases to districts and

high risks as laid out in the previous annual report of the Auditor General for the

years under review. Four (4) highly funded roads on rehabilitation and maintenance

were selected from each district. For the years 2007/2008 to 2010/2011,

documentary reviews were made to ascertain whether the rehabilitation and

maintenance works were executed as planned. Physical inspection was conducted on

selected roads that had been rehabilitated and maintained in the FY 2010/2011 to

ascertain their status.

2.2 Data Collection Methods

Various methods were used for collecting data from the field and these included:

document review, interviews and physical inspections.

Interviews

Officials from the MoLG namely: the Director of Local government inspection, the

Commissioner, Urban inspection and the Commissioner, district inspection. At the

district level, the CAO, DE, District Planners, CFOs and Heads of PDUs were

interviewed during the audit with the a view of assessing how districts plan, execute

and control the quality of feeder roads rehabilitation and maintenance works.

Documentary Review

Various documents were reviewed in respect of feeder roads covering aspects of

rehabilitation and maintenance as per Appendix II

8

Physical Inspection

Field visits were carried out in five sampled districts from which one road in the most

current FY (FY 2010/11) in each district was randomly selected with the aim of

acquainting ourselves with the status of feeder roads as well as to appreciate the

challenges affecting the execution of road works. The visits were also intended to

gather more information so as to substantiate the data obtained from interview and

documentary reviews and to observe execution on the ground.

2.3 Data Analysis

The team analyzed work plans, budgets, procurement documents, supervision and

inspection reports and monitoring and evaluation reports. Actual commitments for the

roads activities were analyzed to assess the trend of road rehabilitation &

maintenance. Expenditure on the different roads in the districts was also analyzed

with a view of understanding the frequency of rehabilitation and maintenance on

individual roads. The availability and condition of the road equipment at the districts

was also analyzed.

9

CHAPTER 3

3.0 SYSTEMS AND PROCESS DESCRIPTION

3.1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF KEY PLAYERS

Ministry of Local Government (MoLG)

The Ministry is mandated to carry out the following responsibilities in line with

district/feeder roads maintenance and rehabilitation as specified in the Local

Government Act, Cap 243:-

To inspect, monitor, and where necessary offer technical advice/assistance,

support supervision and training to all Local Governments.

To act as liaison/linkage ministry with respect to other Central Government

ministries and departments, parastatals, private sector, regional and international

organizations.

Chief Administrative Officer (C.A.O)

The C.A.O carries out a number of responsibilities as follows:

Is the Accounting Officer of the district

Preparation of annual work plan for the department as the chairperson of the

technical committee

Responsible for road maintenance and rehabilitation

Expend all monies for road maintenance and rehabilitation as and when available

Report on quarterly basis to the line ministry and other funders as required

Account, monitor and ensure value for money District Engineer

The District Engineer carries out a number of responsibilities as follows:

Carry out annual inventory of district roads

Budget for interventions as spelt out in road inventory

Prepare terms of reference i.e. getting Bills of Quantities (B.O.Q) and drawings

Submit B.O.Qs and designs to the Procurement and Disposal Unit (PDU) for

Bidding process

Evaluate bids in the Evaluations committee as a technical member

Contract supervision including certification of work done

10

Prepares interim and final payment certificates, defects liability and environment

restoration certificates

Commissioning completed projects

Maintenance of infrastructure put in place to save the investment

District Planner

The District planner carries out a number of responsibilities as follows:

Integrates departmental work plans into the overall district annual work plan

Links departmental budgets and work plans with the overall district budget

Monitors budget performance

Chief Finance Officer

The C.F.O carries out a number of responsibilities as follows:

Preparation of district budgets

Payment of funds

Maintenance of contracts/commitments register

Head of Procurement and Disposal Unit

Prepares district procurement plans

Prepares contract documents

Is secretary to the contracts committee

3.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION

Planning and Budgeting

Planning

A three year development plan is drawn by the planning unit of every district

authority covering all sectors where sector heads, including District Engineer, submit

their proposals annually. Anticipated revenues and expenditures should be developed

in line with the Local Government objectives, amongst which are the maintenance

and rehabilitation of the district/feeder roads. Development plans for all districts are

integrated into the MoLG budget which is in turn submitted to the MoFPED for

financing.

To come up with the annual proposals, a situation analysis on the road inventory of

feeder roads is conducted by the engineering department annually to assess the

condition of the road structures (bridges, culverts and their head walls), road surface,

11

shoulders and drainages. Findings are fed into software known as the Rehabilitation

and Maintenance Planning System (RAMPS) issued by the Ministry of Works (M.o.W).

The System has road codes and all cost variables for maintenance and rehabilitation

of a road. Assessment is automatically made and roads are ranked in priority

intervention as shown in Table No.2 below.

Table 2: Table showing how roads are ranked in various conditions and in

the order of priority interventions

Rank Condition Priority Intervention

1 Good Routine maintenance

2 Fair Periodic maintenance

3 Bad Rehabilitation

4 Worse Construction

Source: RAMPS Manual 2003.

The system further computes the estimated costs to be incurred on every road

condition. The recommendations of the system are compared to the issued Indicative

Planning Figures (I.P.Fs) by MOFPED upon which the annual district road workplan is

derived depending on the available funds. Beginning with the FY 2010/11, the use of

RAMPS was replaced with programming tables. District engineers conduct physical

surveys and according to their experience and judgment determine the cost of

interventions on the rehabilitation and maintenance of roads.

Budgeting

A regional budget framework workshop is conducted in the month of December and

in that workshop, the MOFPED issues Indicative Planning Figures (IPFs) to each

district indicating the funds the central government is to release to it in the following

financial year. The Finance ,planning and administration departments of district

authorities draft a budget call circular to be issued to each sector head instructing

them to revise and tailor their work plans to the IPFs given. Focus is put on the IPFs

together with the assessment report of the engineering department when drawing

the budget to ascertain what should be given priority.

12

The budget framework paper is prepared by the Technical Planning Committee in

January and a copy submitted to the Ministry of Finance, Planning & Economic

Development.

In April, a detailed budget is prepared and presented to council for approval by 15th

June of every financial year by district budget desk and secretary finance committee

respectively.

Funding Feeder Roads Rehabilitation and Maintenance Activities

The approved budget is submitted to the MOFPED Funding to districts for feeder

roads for rehabilitation and maintenance is channelled through the URF, the Peace

Recovery Development Programme (PRDP) and the Local Government Management

Service Delivery Programme (LGMSDP) on a quarterly basis after signing a

performance agreement with URF. These are supplemented by funds raised through

local revenues and grants from development partners/donors.

Distribution of district road funds to district authorities is determined using the

formula4 below:

A=U+P+S

Where:

A=Allocation to district X

U=Uniform allocation =20% of Total allocation available/Number of districts

P=Population allocation = 60% of Total allocation available (District

Population/National population)

S=Surface area allocation = 20% of Total allocation available (District surface

area/National surface area)

Upon receipt of the funds, the engineering department distributes the funds in the

various categories of routine and periodic maintenance and rehabilitation of feeder

roads as per approved Annual District Road WorkPlan (ADRWP).

4 Annual Uganda Road Fund Performance statement 2010/2011 page 48 and 49.

13

At the end of every quarter, the district engineer is required to submit a report on the

works executed, which serves as a yardstick for subsequent funding.

Procurement

After approving the annual budget, a detailed survey is carried out by the engineering

department to prepare B.O.Qs which form part of the bidding documents. The

engineering department submits to the P.D.U a requisition form and statement of

requirements which details all the interventions to be executed as shown in the

procurement cycle in Appendix III.

The procurement of contractors for the maintenance and rehabilitation of feeder

roads is done by the District Contracts Committee in line with the Public Procurement

and Disposal of Public Assets Act, (PPDA) 2003 which regulates the procurement and

disposal of public assets. The Local Governments Public Procurement and Disposal of

Public Assets Guidelines and regulations, 2008 further amplifies the above Act.

Execution of Works

The planned interventions of routine maintenance, periodic maintenance and

rehabilitation are executed by the successful bidder. The Procurement Disposal Unit

(PDU) in the district is required to maintain contract documents for each feeder road

worked upon detailing payment, progress of works, certificates of works issued,

negotiations, awards, variations and agreements.

The contractor submits a request for payment for the works completed to the

engineer who evaluates the work done by the contractor and when found

satisfactory, he/she issues an engineer’s certificate on works completed. Payments to

a contractor are computed net of retention and other statutory deduction, such as:

withholding tax and advance recoveries, if any.

The road remains in the care of the contractor till the expiry of the defects liability

period as stipulated in the contract terms and conditions. Retention fees are paid

back to the contractor and the road handed over to the district for commissioning in

case of rehabilitation. After commissioning, the districts are expected to maintain the

roads.

Sometimes districts with road equipment units comprising: Motor grader, wheel

loader, Pick Up, Tracks-cavator (Truck loader), tractor, dump truck, concrete mixer

14

can directly carry out maintenance and rehabilitation of feeder roads under force

account.

Inspection and Supervision of Road Works

The engineering department inspects and supervises the contractors during the

execution of works and makes quarterly progress reports and road status reports to

the works committee of the district, sector ministries, URF and other development

partners, in cases where donor funds were used. These serve as a condition to

access subsequent funding from the MoFPED and donors.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is done by both technical staff and political heads.

The technical staff conduct M&E activities in the district on a quarterly basis and it is

referred to as “Multi sectoral monitoring”, which is conducted by various Heads of

departments on all district sectors, including works. The political M&E exercise is

conducted on a quarterly basis by the district chairperson and councillors who are

guided by the district engineer as a technical person. Reports are prepared by the

district planner, in case of a technical M & E, and by the Secretary to the technical

services committee, in case of a political M & E. The reports are discussed in the

District Council and recommendations made to the engineering department for

implementation.

15

CHAPTER 4

4.0 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 PLANNING AND BUDGETING

4.1.1 Use of RAMPS in Planning and Budgeting

According to the District Road Works Planning Manual Vol.1, the planning and

budgeting of the rehabilitation and maintenance of Feeder roads in the districts

should be triggered by a situation analysis on the road inventory conducted by the

engineering departments annually to assess the condition of the roads structures

(bridges, culverts and their head walls), road surface, shoulders and drainages per

100 meters of every road under survey. The findings of the situation analysis are fed

into software known as Rehabilitation and Maintenance Planning System (RAMPS)

issued by the Ministry of Works (MoW). The System has road codes and cost

variables for maintenance and rehabilitation of roads. Assessment is automatically

made and roads ranked in priority intervention as indicated in the table below.

Table 3: Table showing how roads are ranked in various conditions in order

of priority interventions

Rank Condition Priority Intervention

1 Good Routine maintenance

2 Fair Periodic maintenance

3 Bad Rehabilitation

4 Worse Construction

Source: RAMPS Manual 2003.

The system further computes estimated costs to be incurred on every road condition.

The recommendations of the system on works interventions and costs are used in the

Evaluation, Prioritization and Selection of the district road works to be undertaken in

a given Financial Year.

It was observed that, 65% (13 roads) of the twenty roads selected in the five districts

visited under the case study had RAMPs recommendations made. Out of the 13 roads

with RAMPS recommendations made, only 62% (8 roads) had the recommendations

implemented. Although one Road in Mukono district (Bugereka – Nakyeke – Kasawo)

had RAMP recommendations made, it was not rehabilitated due to lack of funds in

16

the FY 2007/08. Four roads were rehabilitated and maintained at a cost of Shs

513,372,056 without adhering to RAMPS recommendations as indicated below:

Table.4: Showing Roads rehabilitated/maintained without adhering to

RAMP recommendations

S/N ROAD NAME DISTRICT AMOUNT

(SHS)

RAMPS

RECOMMENDATION

ACTUAL

WORK

PLAN

1 Muteme -Mukabara Hoima 65,550,000 Periodic maintenance

of 10 Kms at a cost of

Shs.44.9 Million

Rehabilitation

works at a

cost of

Shs.65.5

Million

2 Bulima - Byebega Masindi 152,502,006 Rehabilitation of 17.7

Kms.

Rehabilitation

of Only 15.5

Kms

3 Kigumba -

Apodorwa -Mboira

Masindi 50,000,000 21.7Kms of periodic

maintenance at a cost

of Shs.75 Million.

Machine

rehabilitation

at a cost of

Shs.50 Million

4 Ibaralibi -

Alimugonza

Masindi 245,320,050 Rehabilitation of

24.3Kms at a cost of

Shs.240 Million.

Periodic

maintenance

at a cost of

Shs.250

Million

Total 513,372,056

Source: Annual District Road Work plans and Contract documents

35% (7 roads) of the roads visited, which were rehabilitated and maintained at a cost

of Ushs.1,083,740,323 had no RAMPS recommendations made. Most cases were

noted in the financial year 2010/2011 when the districts abandoned the use of

RAMPS, save for Kumi district, and adopted programming tables on the

recommendation of the Uganda Road Fund (URF) as indicated in Table No.5.

No explanation was given by the affected districts for not making RAMPS

recommendations prior to the FY 2010/2011.

17

Table.5: Showing Roads rehabilitated/maintained without RAMP

recommendations

S/N DISTRICT ROAD NAME COST OF

REHABILITATION/

MAINTENANCE

(SHS)

FINANCIAL

YEAR

1 Mukono Kigorobya – Sseta -Sezibwa 276,000,000 2010/11

2 Mukono Wagala -Najjembe 399,834,250 2009/10

3 Hoima Kigorobya – Icukira – Kitoba (12Kms) 55,200,000 2010/11

4 Hoima Kitooba - Kyabasengye 193,515,323 2008/09

5 Hoima Kyabesengya-Kaboijana 43,125,000 2009/10

6 Masindi Kitamba – Kijunjubwa (22.2Kms) 200,000,000 2010/11

7 Wakiso Nsangi – Buloba(4.70KM)

Buloba – Kakiri (13.90KM)

315,900,000 2010/11

TOTAL 1,483,574,573

Source: Annual District Road Work plans and Contract documents

It was also noted that the recommendations of programming tables did not include

operational costs such as fuel and allowances for inspection, supervision and M & E,

but only included direct charges related to interventions. As a result, the budgeted

rehabilitation and maintenance costs did not match with those recommended by the

programming tables. Management explained that URF was not funding operational

costs and they could not therefore include it in the programming tables.

Kumi district had the highest level of compliance with RAMP recommendations,

whereby all the four selected roads in the district utilized RAMP recommendations

followed by Wakiso district. This was attributed to the high staffing levels in the

engineering departments of the two districts.

Hoima district did not fully comply with the RAMP recommendations. Out of the four

selected roads in the district, only one had RAMP recommendations, which were not

utilized. The details of district compliance levels are shown in the Table No.6.

18

Table.6: Showing district compliance levels with RAMP recommendations.

District Roads

planned

RAMPS

Recommendations

made

Recommendations

adhered to

No RAMPS

recommendations

Number

of

Roads

Percentage Number

of

Roads

Percentage Number

of

Roads

Percentage

Mukono 4 2 50% 1 50% 2 50%

Hoima 4 1 25% 0 0% 3 75%

Masindi 4 3 75% 0 0% 1 25%

Wakiso 4 3 75% 3 100% 1 25%

Kumi 4 4 100% 4 100% 0 0%

TOTAL/

AVERAGE

20 13 65% 8 62 % 7 35%

Source: Annual District Road Work plans

Failure to utilize RAMPs recommendations, where they were prepared, and the failure

to prepare RAMPS recommendations on some roads in the rehabilitation and

maintenance of roads during the years 2007/2008, 2008/2009 and 2009/2010, was

attributed to laxity by the respective District Engineers (DE), who failed to submit

RAMPS recommendations to the District Technical Planning Committees (DTPC).

However, according to the District Accounting Officers, in the FY 2010/2011, the use

of RAMPS was abandoned following instructions by URF to start preparing DAWPS

using programming tables.

Management Response:

Hoima district

Management explained that all its requests to URF were based on RAMPS

(This explanation could not be verified as documents were not provided to the audit

team).

19

Masindi district

Management explained that it was using RAMPS till the coming of URF

when they shifted to programming tables. The management of the district

further explained that there was irrational allocation of funds to various

stakeholders when it comes to the rehabilitation and maintenance of roads.

For example, the standard cost of rehabilitating the same kilometer of road

differs with institutions: UNRA applied a standard cost per kilometer of

Shs.36 million, Shs.25 million by MoW&T and Shs.13 million by MoLG

(Districts). They called for harmization of the rates applied.

Wakiso district

Management explained that they complied with the use of RAMPS up to the

FY 2007/08, but the programme developed software problems and the

district trained focal person left the district. URF introduced a simpler

format based on road condition and available funds against work plans

approved by the Council.

Mukono district

Management explained that they were not using RAMPS, but it was

instead using programming tables. The management of the district,

however, agreed that RAMPS is more scientific and better since it could

generate road conditions more accurately.

Generally, all districts admitted that RAMPS recommendations, sometimes,

were not utilized due to the inadequate funding released to the districts,

which could not cover all the ranges of the bad roads in the districts.

The management of Uganda Road Fund explained that it had never issued

any instructions refraining districts from using RAMPS, however, it

instructed that the results of RAMPS can be reported in the Annual District

Road Work Plans to URF using a more compatible software with URF

system and, as a result, it advised the districts to use Microsoft excel

Computer programme, (Programming Tables). URF further explained that

the newly emerging districts had not procured RAMPS, and the alternative

option was to advise them to use the Tables.

20

Non preparation of RAMP and non utilization of RAMP recommendations during the

rehabilitation and maintenance of some roads led to non-scientific cost estimates

being used in the planning process. Districts did not comply with the planning

guidelines for the rehabilitation and maintenance of district roads and as a result

Shs.1,483,574,573 spent on the rehabilitation and maintenance of 7 roads, which had

no RAMP recommendations could not be relied on for accuracy and the districts might

not have received value for money on the amount spent. Additionally, the use of

programming tables, which are basically dependent on the engineer’s personal

judgment, is likely to give non-scientific costs.

Conclusion

Districts did not fully comply with the requirement of considering RAMPS

recommendations during the planning and budgeting for the rehabilitation and

maintenance of the roads. The costs of the rehabilitation and maintenance on some

roads were not scientifically derived and this casts doubt on their correctness in the

district budgets.

Recommendations

In order to attain proper planning, which is in accordance with District Road Works

Planning Manuals, districts, in conjunction with URF and MoW&T, should

encourage continuous use of scientific methods to determine the cost of the

rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads.

The DEs who lack knowledge and skills in the use of scientific methods of

determining rehabilitation and maintenance costs should be trained.

URF should expand its mandate to offering technical backstopping to DLGE

engineers in areas where they are not competent enough.

URF should also ensure that the funds released to districts for the rehabilitation

and maintenance of feeder include a portion of operational costs to enable

districts to plan and budget for those activities effectively.

21

Districts should harmonize the requirements of RAMPS with those of the

programming tables to ensure that the two are used complement each other for

proper planning and communication of results.

In future, URF, UNRA, MoW&T, MoLG and other key stakeholders in the road

sector should explore a possibility of developing more comprehensive and

standard software, which would enable planning, budgeting, implementation and

reporting of road works in the sector.

4.1.2 Preparation of Work plans for the Rehabilitation and Maintenance of

Feeder Roads

According to Local Government Finance and Accounting Regulations, 2007 Sections

18 (1), the chief executive shall ensure prompt production of annual plans and

budgets for the council. Section 18 (3) of the same regulations, requires that budget

estimates shall be based on the objectives to be achieved for the financial year and

during implementation efforts shall be made to achieve the agreed objectives or

targets, as the programme of the council. Accordingly, annual district work plans for

the rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads should be prepared in accordance

with approved budgets. Details of interventions and activities for the different

operations of routine and periodic maintenance, rehabilitation and spot repairs are

disclosed in both the annual work plan and the approved budget.

From the five districts visited under the case study, only Masindi district prepared

annual work plans in accordance with the approved budgets. It was noted that in the

four districts work plans were prepared and they indicated the interventions and

activities to be carried out, which were not indicated in the approved budgets. The

budgets only indicated absolute costs of the interventions without specifying the

activities and costs on each road. Notes to the budgets detailing interventions,

activities and costs on each road were not prepared and attached to the budgets.

During interviews management explained that the notes to the budgets were not

prepared being an oversight on their side.

In the absence of detailed notes to the budget, it was difficult to compare the

rehabilitation and maintenance activities specified in the work plans with those in the

budgets. Preparation of annual work plans which are not in accordance with the

22

budget provisions could lead to the execution of non priority works outside the

budgeted resources.

Management Response

Wakiso district

Management agreed that the budgets did not capture all the details of

works on the roads, but were (details) reflected in the Bills of Quantities

(BOQs). It was not a practice to attach detailed notes of road interventions

to budgets.

Kumi district

Management admitted that the notes to the budgets were not prepared,

but explained that both the budgets and work plans are approved by the

Council, hence reducing the fear that the two might be conflicting.

Hoima district

Management explained that they had all the summaries in the budgets

naming all the roads and estimated costs (This explanation could not be verified

as documents were not provided to the audit team).

Mukono district

Management explained that the details of road works are indicated in the

work plans. Management attributed the preparation of budgets without

detailed notes to the absence of a district Investment Plan.

Conclusion

Activities for the rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads in the districts were

not specified in the budgets, in form of notes to the budgets. In such circumstances,

we could not establish that the activities planned and budgeted for were the ones

appearing in the work plans.

23

Recommendations

District Planning Committees should ensure that work plans for the rehabilitation

and maintenance of roads are prepared from detailed activities supporting the

budget provisions.

The District Planning Committees should ensure that notes to the budget are

prepared and attached to the budgets clearly indicating the interventions and

activities to be carried out.

4. 1.3 Use of Annual District Road Work plans in the Execution of Works

According to the District Road Works: Administrative and Operational Guidelines Vol.

5, districts should develop the Annual District Road Work plans (ADRWPs) to identify

maintainable road links and select and prioritize the road works. Vol.1 of the District

Road Works: Planning manual, Section D3 further gives detailed instructions for the

preparation of ADRWP. The actual interventions and activities for the rehabilitation

and maintenance of feeder roads should be in accordance with those in the approved

ADRWP.

It was noted that 17 out of 20 (85%) road works in the five districts sampled were

executed as per ADRWP. Wakiso, Kumi and Masindi districts fully executed their

works, on the selected four roads per district, as per ADRWP.

In Mukono district, the road works on the Bugereka – Nakyeke – Kasawo road, which

were planned for the financial year 2007/2008, were not executed due to lack of

funds as explained by the DE. The district had three roads maintained as per ADRWP.

In Hoima district only two roads were maintained as per ADRWP. Muteme –

Mukabara road was planned for rehabilitation at a cost of Shs.65, 550,000 in the

financial year 2007/2008, but the actual works executed were for periodic

maintenance. There was no reason given by management as to why works on the

road were executed outside the approved plan and the ADRWP was not revised

accordingly. The cost of the actual execution of the works could also not be

ascertained due to the failure of the district management to avail records pertaining

to the payments. Additionally, the annual work plan for the financial year 2008/2009

was not availed for audit and all efforts to access it were rendered futile.

24

Execution of interventions and activities outside the approved ADRWP creates

pressure on district budgets.

Management response

Management clarified that the Muteme – Mukabara road was not planned

for rehabilitation as indicated in the report. The road was planned for in the

FY 2007/08 for periodic maintenance under PAF. (This explanation could not

be verified as documents were not provided to the audit team).

Conclusion

Districts did not in some instances fully adhere to the work plans during the execution

of interventions and activities in the rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads

and this led to the execution of road works outside the planned interventions and

activities.

Recommendation

District Road engineers should ensure that only works for the rehabilitation and

maintenance of feeder roads appearing in the approved annual work plans are

executed.

4.2 EXECUTION OF REHABILIATION AND MAINTENANCE WORKS

4.2.1 Implementation of Road works as per Work plan Schedules

According to the district road works planning manual, the implementation of feeder

roads rehabilitation and maintenance works should comply with the work plan

schedules detailed in the work plan, which clearly define the interventions/activities to

be undertaken.

It was established that only works on the 3 (15%) roads in the districts of Hoima,

Mukono and Wakiso out of the 20 selected roads in the five districts, were completed

as per work plan schedule. Works on seventeen (85%) roads were not implemented

as per work plan schedules. The analysis of annual district work plan schedules,

respective payment vouchers, contract documents and progress reports revealed that

there were delays in the implementation of works, which ranged from one month to

two years, Appendix IV, refers. For example, the rehabilitation of Bullima – Byebega

road in Masindi district delayed for one year and seven months; and at the time of

25

audit (July 2011), the rehabilitation of Kigumba – Apodorwa –Mboira road in the

same district had been abandoned since the financial year 2008/2009.

It should, however, be noted that some roads in Hoima and Wakiso districts were

completed as per work plan schedules. They include: Kigorobya – Icukira – Kitoba in

Hoima district and Kitanda – Sayi – Kiwebwa in Wakiso district.

The average district performance indicated that Masindi and Kumi districts

experienced the highest delays of 22 and 9 months, respectively, in all the four roads

selected for scrutiny in the districts.

Picture .1: showing on-going rehabilitation works on Mukongoro-Kamacha-

Bukedea Road, Kumi District.

Wokers executing road works

Source: Picture taken by OAG staff

In a related development, works on Mukura-Ngora road in Kumi district delayed for 1

½ years as at the time of audit inspection (June 2011). The culverts were delivered

and abandoned by the road sides and the old ones had not been replaced as shown

in the photographs below:

26

Pictures .2 & 3: Showing old and abandoned culverts at Mukura-Ngora road

in Kumi district

Old culverts not replaced. Abandoned culverts

Source: Picture taken by OAG staff

Hoima district was the best performing district with an average delay of 1 month

followed by Wakiso (3 months) and Mukono district (5 months) as indicated in Table

No.7 (a) below:

Table.7 (a): Showing average district project delays

District Road

planned

Roads not

implemented as per

work plan schedule

% of roads not

completed as

per schedule

District Average

delay

(Months)

Hoima 4 3 75 1 ¾

Kumi 4 4 100 9

Masindi 4 4 100 22

Mukono 4 3 75 5

Wakiso 4 3 75 3

Total/Average 20 17 85 8

Source: District annual work plans, payment vouchers, payment certificates &

progress reports

27

The delay in implementing the road works was attributed to delayed release of funds

from MOFPED and URF, insufficient funding, inadequate capacity of contractors (i.e.

human, equipment and financial capacity) to implement works as agreed, machine

breakdown and delays in the procurement process, as explained by the district

officials during interviews. Scrutiny of the contract documents, which were taken

through a procurement cycle, showed that there were delays at different

procurement stages. Kumi district experienced the highest average delay of 76 days

compared to Hoima district with an average delay of 15 days in the procurement

process as summarized in Table No.7 (b) and detailed in Appendix III (b). In

Wakiso district no procurement records were provided for analysis.

Table No.7 (b) showing district delays (days) in the procurement process

FINANCIAL YEAR

DISTRICTS

HOIMA KUMI MUKONO

2007/08 NA NA NA

2008/09 NA 145 25

2009/10 16 22 14

2010/11 14 62 100

AVERAGE DELAY (DAYS) 15 76 46

NA: Procurement files for the sampled roads were not availed

Source: District Procumbent records

As a result of the delayed road works, the public did not receive the intended benefits

in time despite the government (districts) expenditure of a total of shs.3,168,711,204

on projects as shown in Appendix IV. These delays attracted payment of liquidated

damages of Shs.326,868,894 in accordance with the General Conditions of Contracts

(GCC), which provided for a payment of liquidated damages of 0.5% of the contract

price per day up to a maximum of 10% of the contract price as detailed in Appendix

V. The districts did not recover the damages as summarized in Table No. 8 below:

28

Table.8: Showing amounts spent on delayed road projects

S/N DISTRICT COST OF DELAYED

ROAD PROJECTS (SHS)

RECOVERABLE

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES

(SHS)

1 Hoima 61,276,533 6,127,653

2 Kumi 1,141,825,304 114,182,531

3 Masindi 795,809,543 74,580,954

4 Mukono 549,832,250 69,980,999

5 Wakiso 619,967,574 61,996,757

Total 3,168,711,204 326,868,894

Source: District Contract documents, payment vouchers and payment certificates

Management response

Masindi district

Management explained that works on the Bulima-Byebega road were

undertaken by two contractors: Minimax Limited and Empa associated

Limited who begun the works at different times. The works were

completed within a period of 8 months by both contractors. Management

further explained that there was no delay on the Kitamba-Kijujubwa road

and the only delay was experienced at Ibaralibi-Alimugnza road. The works

on this road commenced on 22nd January 2010 and were expected to end

on 30th June 2010, but were extended for one month to 30th July 2010. Due

to delayed clearance of the use of closing year balances by the Accountant

General, the works on the road resumed on 1st October 2010 and ended on

31st December 2010 (This explanation could not be verified as documents

were not provided to the audit team).

Wakiso district

Management explained that the district had generally been on schedule

except in isolated cases like when there were delays in approval by the

relevant authorities, such as Solicitor General. Management further

explained that the recovery of liquidated damages had not been enforced

because in most cases the delay was not attributed to the contractors.

29

Contractors sometimes delay due to scarce, and at times, inferior quality of

road plant available for hire.

Kumi district

Management explained that the district had planned for the rehabilitation

of roads, including low cost sealing of one road. However, the modalities

for implementation of low cost sealing were not concluded by the Ministry

of Works and Transport by close of the financial year. The District then

opted to use the money meant for low cost sealing to rehabilitate Atoot –

Kodike road section C. It was at this point then that the contract to

rehabilitate Atoot – Kodike road section C was awarded hence the delay.

There was also understaffing in the PDU, which has been addressed by

recruiting one more staff.

For Mukongoro – Kamacha- Bukedea Road, at the time of audit, gravelling

and culvert installation was complete. However, stone pitching which is the

last activity after swamp filling was underway at some areas of the road as

shown in picture 1 P (Page 36) of the OAG’s report, but the road section

was in use.

For Mukura – Ngora-road, the photograph of the abandoned culverts seem

to have been taken before June 2011. The said culverts have since been

installed. However, management has had challenges with the contractor

who claims to have completed the work whereas he has not. The

contractor has been directed to complete the works. Meanwhile, the

Accounting Officer has referred the matter to the Solicitor General for legal

advice.

Mukono district

Management explained that the delay was due to inadequate equipment

on the side of the contractors.

No explanation was given from Hoima district in regard to the delays in

implementation of road works.

30

Conclusion

Delayed completion of road works hampered the delivery of services, thus affecting

the socio-economic activities and transportation of agricultural inputs and produce

from the country side.

Recommendations

The implementation of the activities of the rehabilitation and maintenance of

feeder roads should be in accordance with the work plan schedules so as to

ensure timely delivery of intended services.

URF together with MOFPED should ensure that the funds for the rehabilitation

and maintenance of feeder roads are released as per district approved budgets

and in time to enable districts to execute their roads works in accordance with

work plan schedules and budgets.

District Contracts Committees should critically evaluate the contractors’ capacity

and previous performance to ensure that only competent contractors are awarded

contracts.

District Procurement and Disposal Units (PDUs) should ensure that the

procurement process is managed in accordance with the PPDA regulations and in

a timely manner.

Districts should consider applying General Conditions of Contracts (GCC), which

govern the timely execution of contracts such that any delay in completion of the

road project will attract the payment of liquidated damages by the contractors.

Districts should ensure that the approvals required from 3rd parties, such as the

Solicitor General, are obtained on time to avoid jeopardising project progress.

4.2.2 Adherence to Procurement Laws, Regulations and Guidelines

According to the Public Procurement and Disposal of public Assets Act, (PPDA) 2003,

the Local Governments (Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets)

Regulations and Guidelines, the procurement and management of contracts require

public entities to prepare procurement plans, obtain procurement requisitions from

user departments, confirm the availability of funds, review contract specifications,

select methods of procurement and evaluate bids, prepare and approve bidding

31

documents, advertise for the services and invite bids, receive and open bids, review

evaluation reports, award and communicate contracts, ensure that awards are

accepted, ensure that contracts are signed, ensure that contract performance is

managed and monitored, ensure that payments to contractors are net of retention

fees, statutory deductions and advances and contracts evaluated at the end.

A sample of 20 roads selected in the five districts was subjected to assessment

criteria to test if all the aforementioned procedures were followed in the procurement

cycle. Compliance levels were noted for each of the contracts awarded on the

selected roads in the districts. On average 84 procurement procedures were to be

implemented per district on the 4 roads selected in accordance with the PPDA

procurement cycle and regulations. Out of the average 84 procedures, only 49 were

complied with resulting in an average district compliance level of only 58% in all the

districts visited. Wakiso district performed well with 95% level of compliance followed

by Mukono (72%). Hoima was the worst performing district with a compliance level

of only 34%. Table.9 shows district compliance levels.

Table.9: Showing district procurement compliance levels

District Procurement activities to

be implemented as per

PPDA cycle and

regulations

Activities

complied with.

Percentage

compliance

Wakiso 84 76 95%

Mukono 84 57 72%

Kumi 84 46 58%

Masindi 84 39 49%

Hoima 84 27 34%

Average 84 49 58%

Source: District procurement records

Non compliance to procurement laws, regulations and guidelines was noted in the

following areas:

Audit established that procurement plans were not availed to audit in 3 out of 5

districts of Mukono, Hoima and Masindi for the FY 2007/2008.

Through the interviews conducted with the Heads of PDUs in all the five districts

visited, it was confirmed that the engineering departments delayed in submitting

32

the procurement requisitions (filled with clear specifications of works and

statement of requirements) to the PDU for initialization of the procurement

process.

It was also confirmed that the approval of contracts by the Office of the Solicitor

General sometimes delayed. For example, the approval of the contract for the

rehabilitation of the Mukongoro-Kamaca-Bukedea road in Kumi district in the FY

2010/2011 was delayed by 42 days.

There was no documentary evidence to show that the districts managed contract

in accordance to the PPDA regulations.

Through interviews with Heads of PDUs and engineering departments in all the five

districts visited, the above anomalies were attributed to under-staffing levels in their

departments. However, scrutiny of the district staffing levels as per Appendix VII

revealed that districts were not highly understaffed. Mukono and Masindi districts

were fully staffed. Audit attributed the causes of the aforementioned anomalies to

laxity of staff in following PPDA guidelines.

Without procurement plans in place, procurements were made haphazardly outside

the approved budgets and work plans and also in contradiction with PPDA regulations.

Non-compliance to procurement procedures delayed the procurement process, which,

subsequently, affected the timely implementation of road works. Also, the failure to

manage, monitor, supervise and evaluate contracts, left the defects on road works

undetected and contractors with poor track record continued to be awarded contracts.

Management response

Mukono district

Management explained that the procurement plans were in place with its

PDU and copies would be sent for verification. (Copies not sent for verification)

Kumi district

Management attributed the non-compliance to the procurement procedures

to understaffing, especially in the Engineering Department, which leads to

delays in submitting procurement requisitions to PDU for initiation of the

33

procurement Process. However, the district has recruited two engineering

assistants in a bid to bridge the existing staffing gap. There was also

understaffing in the PDU which has been addressed by recruiting one more

member of staff. Heads of Departments have also been trained in

Procurement management to address the knowledge and skills gaps. They

agreed to implement the recommendations raised in the OAG’s report.

Hoima district

Management explained that at that time (2007/08) the user departments

used to submit their requests for procurement which were consistent with

the approved budgets and work plans and this was the basis for kick

starting the procurement process. Currently they have a Procurement and

Disposal Unit (PDU) and the annual procurement plans are compiled.

(Copies not sent for verification.)

Masindi district

Management agreed with the finding in the report during the exit meeting,

although it did not respond in writing.

Conclusion

Districts did not fully comply with the PPDA Act, local government regulations and

guidelines and in the circumstance, this caused poor identification of priorities,

planning, budgeting and execution of the rehabilitation and maintenance activities in

an economic an efficient manner.

Recommendations

Districts should fully comply with all the provisions in the PPDA Act, and the local

government regulations and guidelines to ensure proper identification, planning,

budgeting and execution of the rehabilitation and maintenance activities.

The district PDUs should give proper procurement guidance, in accordance with

the PPDA Act, to district engineering departments on matters concerning the

procurement of road contractors.

34

The district engineering departments should always follow guidelines given to

them and should always prepare and submit their procurement requisitions in time

to allow the district PDUs to prepare procurement plans in time.

4.2.3 Availability of Essential Road Equipment

According to the local government policy on districts road equipment, districts are

supposed to have a full set of essential road equipment, which includes: a motor

grader, a wheel loader, a pick up, an excavator (truck loader), a tractor, a dump

truck, a water bouser, motor cycles, a pedestrian roller, a motor roller, a concrete

mixer, and a bulldozer.

It was established that none of the five districts visited had a full set of essential road

equipment as required. The district inventory of the road equipment ranged between

33% (5 out of 15) for Hoima district to 87% (13 out of 15) for Masindi and Mukono

districts.

Further inquiry into the status of the equipment available revealed that only 54% of

the road equipment was in fair running condition and 46% were old, broken down or

grounded. Masindi district was the most affected with 11 out of 13 (85%) road

equipment grounded and broken down followed by Mukono district which had 7 out

13 (54%) equipment grounded. Wakiso district was the only district with all its 11

(100%) equipment in running condition because the equipment were newly acquired

compared to those of the other districts. A summary of the district equipment

inventory levels and status is shown in Table.10 below and district details in

Appendix VI attached.

35

Table.10: Showing district equipment inventory levels and status

District Required

Number of

district road

equipment (A)

Number of

road

equipments

present

(B)

% Road

Equipment

Present

(B/A)]*100

Equipments

in running

status (D)

% of equipment in

running condition

(E)=[(D)/(B)]*100

Old and

grounded

equipment

(F)

% of old and

grounded

(G)=[(F)/(B)]*100

Hoima 15 5 33 3 60 2 40

Wakiso 15 11 73 11 100 0 0

Kumi 15 12 80 7 58 5 42

Masindi 15 13 87 2 15 11 85

Mukono 15 13 87 6 46 7 54

Overall 75 54 67 29 54 25 46

Source: District roads equipment inventory and physical inspection

Pictures 4 & 5: showing old and grounded equipment in Mukono district

Source: Pictures taken by OAG staff

Through interviews with the district management teams, it was explained that

districts were supposed to carry out the minor maintenances on road equipment

while the regional mechanical workshops (Bugembe, Gulu and Mbarara) were

36

supposed to carry out major maintenance on road equipment. This was also

confirmed by the review of the Ministry of Works Scheme for the maintenance of

district and urban roads guidelines5 for maintenance of equipment, which set up the

regional mechanical workshops.

Furthermore, management explained that due to meagre resources at the districts,

they were failing to carry out minor maintenances which later resulted into major

breakdown hence requiring major maintenance from regional mechanical workshops.

Additionally, audit noted that districts were not adequately maintaining their road

equipment to keep them in a good running condition. In all the five districts visited

during the study there was no evidence to show that pre and post repair

assessments were carried out since there were no reports available on file.

This was further compounded by the failure by the districts to send their broken

down equipment for repairs at the regional mechanical workshops despite the release

of funds by the URF for the repair of equipment. It was further established that

despite the release of shs.7,167,018,457 in the FYs 2009/10 and 2010/11 alone to

the regional mechanical workshops at Bugembe and Mbarara, district road equipment

still remained in a poor state as shown in Table.11 below.

Table.11: Showing releases to Regional Mechanical Workshops by URF and

MoW&T

FINANCIAL YEAR MECHANICAL WORKSHOPS TOTAL AMOUNT

RELEASED (SHS)

BUGEMBE MBARARA

2009/10 293,426,400 3,626,874,300 3,920,300,700

2010/11 1,380,085,457 1,866,632,300 3,246,717,757

TOTAL 1,673,511,857 5,493,506,600 7,167,018,457

Source: Cash books and bank statements at Regional Mechanical Workshops

During inspection of the regional workshops, it was observed that a number of district

equipment had taken long at the workshops. On average district equipment had

5 MoW&T Scheme for maintaining district and Urban roads using equipment and road gangs, 2011 page 9

37

taken sixteen (16) months at both workshops without being repaired at the time of

inspection. Details of the time taken to repair equipment are as indicated in

Appendix VIII.

District officials cited the following as reasons for not sending their road equipment to

the regional mechanical workshops laxity by the regional workshops to effect timely

repairs, coupled with fears of vandalising their equipments due to the long time it

takes to repair them. For example, it took more than one year to repair a roller from

Masindi district by Bugembe workshop. However, it was also noted that the districts

did not communicate to the regional mechanical workshops of their road equipment

breakdowns.

The Managers of both mechanical workshops, during interview, attributed the delay

in repairing the district equipment to insufficient funds released, which do not allow

them to work on all road equipment diagnosed for repair. They also explained that

they have to prioritize which equipment to repair first and sometimes succumb to

political pressure. They again noted that the long procurement process does not allow

them purchase spares in time. The contracts committee at ministry headquarters

delay to award contracts. They also noted that sometimes funds are released late and

sometimes at the closure of the financial year. They further explained that districts do

not report equipment break down in time and that the equipment are poorly handled

resulting into major repairs, which require a lot of funds and time.

The failure by government to allocate the requisite number of road equipment to

districts, coupled with constant equipment break down denied districts the minimum

capacity required to rehabilitate and maintain their planned feeder road works using

the relatively cheap option of force on account as compared to outsourcing.

Conclusion

Without a full set of road equipment and their appropriate maintenance, districts

have failed to rehabilitate and maintain feeder roads and meet their obligation of

providing appropriate feeder road networks for the economic development of their

communities.

38

Recommendations

Government should prioritize the allocation of a full set of road equipment to districts,

which will enable them to carry out their planned rehabilitation and maintenance

activities.

District engineering departments should always conduct timely repair assessment

reviews of their road equipment and communicate their repair needs to the regional

mechanical workshops in a timely manner.

The regional mechanical workshops should inturn ensure that the district road

equipment sent to them for repairs are repaired in time.

Government should prioritize the funding of the budgetary requirements of

mechanical workshops to enable them support districts in their efforts to rehabilitate

and maintain feeder roads in their areas of jurisdiction.

The Ministry of Works and Transport should develop strategies that will enable

expeditious award of contracts for the supply of spare parts to regional mechanical

workshops.

Districts should ensure that the equipment operators are given the necessary skills

that will enable them to handle road equipment properly to avoid unnecessary

breakdown.

Management response

All districts explained that their road equipment were acquired as far back

as 1993 and were old resulting into constant breakdown and high

maintenance costs. They agreed that there were delays in repairing road

equipment due to the challenges faced in procuring spare parts by regional

workshops.

URF noted that districts could service their equipment through regional

mechanical workshops, but the workshops delay to repair them.

MoLG noted that the districts lack personnel to properly handle equipment

and this has caused a challenge in their maintenance.

39

4.2.4 Funding of District Feeder Roads Rehabilitation and Maintenance Works

The funding of districts feeder roads rehabilitation and maintenance works is provided

mainly by central government grants, which are supplemented by local revenues and

grants from development partners. After signing performance agreements with URF,

MOFPED is required to release funds on a quarterly basis to districts to enable them

to implement their road works in time. At the end of every quarter, districts are

required to prepare quarterly progress reports showing the progress of works which

in turn serves as a pre-requisite for subsequent funding.

It was noted that over the period under review, a total of Shs.20,636,221,784 was

budgeted for the rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads in the five districts

selected for audit. Out of the budgeted funding, a total of shs.18,834,718,789 (91%)

was released to the districts, leading to a funding gap of shs.1,781,502,995.

Further analysis of the district actual expenditure indicated that only shs.14,

965,652,222 was spent by the districts over the period, which gives an absorption

rate of only 79% despite the budget-release performance of 91%. This showed that

districts did not have the capacity to absorb all the funds released to them as shown

in Table.12.

Table.12: Showing District feeder road budgets, releases, expenditure and absorption rates

District Annual budget

(A)

Actual release

by M.o.F.P.E.D

(B)

Under/(over

funding)

(C)=(A) – (B)

Actual

expenditure/

Absorption

(D)

Actual

absorption

(%)

(E)=(D)/(B)

Wakiso 6,596,830,790 5,585,791,750 1,011,039,040 5,213,650,931 93%

Masindi 4,335,226,070 3,425,100,102 910,125,968 3,087,167,825 90%

Hoima 2,774,206,609 2,688,832,160 85,374,449 2,265,932,616 84%

Mukono 3,162,883,000 3,161,778,586 18,895,586 2,330,296,800 74%

Kumi 3,767,075,315 3,973,216,191 (206,140,876) 2,068,604,050 52%

Total 20,636,221,784 18,834,718,789 1,781,502,995 14,965,652,222 79%

Source: Audited final accounts and General fund account bank statements for respective

districts.

40

From the table above, Wakiso district had the highest absorption rate of 93% while

Kumi district had the least absorption rate of 52% despite the over funding of its

budget by over shs.206,140,876.

Through interviews with the district management teams and document review, the

challenge of under absorption was attributed to delayed release of funds from

funding agencies and from district general accounts to works departmental accounts.

It took Hoima district 49 days, on average, to receive funding from the Central

Government, Kumi (38), Mukono (28) and Wakiso (42). Audit also noted that the

districts delayed to remit funds to district works departmental accounts. In Mukono

district, it took 17 days, on average, for the works department to receive funds from

the district general fund account, Kumi (12), Hoima (9) and Wakiso (8). No records

were provided for audit in Masindi and Hoima districts for the FYs 2007/08 and

2008/09. The summary of both delays is indicated in Table No.13.

Table No.13 showing district and departmental average delays in receipt of funds

FINANCIAL

YEAR

DISTRICTS

Hoima Kumi Masindi Mukono Wakiso

DST DPT DST DPT DST DPT DST DPT DST DPT

2007/08 N/A N/A N/A 8 N/A N/A 8 12 N/A 9

2008/09 N/A N/A 20 7 N/A N/A 8 18 26 4

2009/10 52 6 54 14 N/A N/A 51 10 47 9

2010/11 45 11 40 18 N/A N/A 43 26 52 10

Average

Delay

(days)

49 9 38 12 N/A N/A 28 17 42 8

Source: District Cash releases and Bank Statements

N/A: Dates not extracted due to lack of records

DST: Delays from Finance to districts

DPT: Delays from district General Account to works Departmental accounts

41

The district management teams further attributed the low absorption of funds to the

prolonged and delayed procurement process due to understaffing in some districts in

the PDUs and laxity in others. They also cited inadequate capacity on the part of

some contractors, who sometimes obtained multiple contracts in different districts,

led to work overloads beyond their capacity. Audit also noted that districts did not

strictly observe their work plan schedules, leading to the accumulation of road funds

that remained unspent at the closure of FYs.

The delayed release of funds affected their ability to rehabilitate and maintain their

budgeted roads in time. There is a risk of misusing of un-absorbed funds if unspent

balances on district works account are not returned to the consolidated funds as

required by law.

Management response

The Accounting officers explained that they were under obligation to

transfer funds within two weeks of receipt of funds. Funds are transferred

as soon as they are received except in a few cases of non accountability.

They also explained that some delays in the transfer of funds are caused by

delayed cash release details.

The Accounting officers further explained that the low absorption of funds

was attributed to the understaffing in Engineering Departments and PDUs

and the situation was exacerbated by the districts’ inability to attract and

retain critical staff in engineering department.

Conclusion

Districts did not receive all their budgeted funds with the exception of Kumi and they

also did not absorb all the funds released to them. Due to untimely release of funds

to districts and the low absorption rates, the status of roads in the districts has

remained undesirable and, as a result, the socio-economic development of the

communities is hampered, leading to the continued existence of poverty and low

standard of living among the populace.

42

Recommendations

The Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development should ensure

timely release of funds, with cash release details, to district to enable them

rehabilitate and maintain their feeder roads as per their work plan schedules.

District Accounting Officers should ensure timely transfer of funds to the works

departmental accounts.

Districts should strictly observe their work plan schedules in the execution of the

rehabilitation and maintenance of road works to avoid funds keeping redundant on

district accounts.

The district PDUs should improve their staffing levels and ensure that the

procurement process is streamlined to cut out delays.

The district contracts committees should ensure that competent firms/contractors,

with outstanding capacity to handle district road works, are awarded contracts.

4.3 INSPECTION, SUPERVISION, MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF ROAD

WORKS

4.3.1 Inspection and Supervision of Road works

According to the district road works implementation and monitoring manual Vol. 3,

the engineering department is required to inspect and supervise all road works during

execution to verify progress and report on the quality and quantity of works

executed. The district engineer should visit the works at least once a week while the

district inspector of works should visit and inspect the works at least twice a week as

laid out in the Ministry of Works Scheme for maintenance of district and urban roads

guidelines6 on road maintenance 2011.

It was established that all the five districts had no evidence that they had carried out

the supervision and inspection activities as required. Only three (3) inspection reports

were availed for audit in Mukono district and two (2) in Wakiso district as evidence of

actual visits made for supervision and inspection over the four years reviewed.

6 MoW&T Scheme for maintaining district and urban roads 2011, page 24

43

Hoima district lacked a district engineer and a works supervisor whereas Kumi district

lacked a works supervisor and a senior engineering assistant in charge of mechanics.

Through interviews with district management teams, the above irregularity was

attributed to several factors, namely:

Oversight for not documenting the findings of the inspection and supervision

activities carried out by the engineering department.

Understaffing of the engineering departments; but Hoima and Kumi districts being

the mostly affected.

Inadequate transport facilities such as motor cycles and pick-up trucks to reach

the field to carry out effective supervision and inspection of rehabilitation and

maintenance activities.

Lack of effective inspection and supervision of road works by the district engineering

departments led to a number of defects going undetected, such as; clogged

drainages, inadequate murram, poorly installed culverts and reduced road width thus;

affecting the quality of works. This also affected the timely execution of works as

contractors were not frequently inspected and defects corrected on time.

For example, the drainage system on Wagala – Najjembe road in Mukono district had

not been opened up and the vegetation had started affecting the road banks as

shown in the photograph below:

44

Picture.6: Showing unsatisfactory road works

Drainage system covered with grass on

Wagala – Najjembe road in Mukono

district

Road width being washed away at Ntoma

swamp on Kitamba-Kijujubwa road, Masindi

district

Source: Pictures taken by OAG staff

Management response

Districts explained that they were not adequately inspecting and

supervising road works due to limited vehicles and motorcycles as well as

understaffing challenges faced in the engineering department. They also

explained that there has been laxity in the documentation of supervision

activities and in record keeping.

Conclusion

In some cases, the rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads was not executed

as per work plan schedules due to inadequate inspection and supervision of road

works.

Recommendations

The district engineering departments should ensure that the supervision and

inspection of road works activities are carried out as per work plans and

implementation and monitoring manuals.

The district engineering departments should ensure that the findings of

supervision and inspections are properly documented and recommendations

therein implemented to ensure that corrective measures are taken.

45

Districts should avail transport facilities to the district engineering departments to

enable them to carry out timely inspection and supervisory activities.

4.3.2 Monitoring and Evaluation of the Rehabilitation and Maintenance of Road

Works

According to Local Government Act, 2007, Section 30 (6), a local government shall

monitor the provision of government services or the implementation of projects in the

area. Also according to Ministry of Works Scheme for maintenance of district and

urban roads guidelines7, Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) activities should be carried

out by both the district technical and political teams: “Multi-sectoral monitoring”, on a

quarterly basis. These activities are required to be conducted with the aim of

assessing performance in terms of output, quality and costs of works so as to enable

the generation of M&E reports. These are in turn submitted to the district

management for action and follow.

It was established that all the five districts did not have M &E work plans showing

scheduled M&E visits; consequently, the quarterly M&E visits to the rehabilitation and

maintenance projects were not conducted as expected. Only 21 out of the 80 (26%)

of expected reports on technical monitoring and 7 out of the 80 (9%) expected

reports on political monitoring were availed to audit as shown in Table.14.

7 MoW&T Scheme for maintaining district and urban roads 2011, page 24

46

Table.14: Showing planned and actual quarterly M & E visits conducted

District Quarterly M & E activities conducted Remarks

Technical team monitoring Political team monitoring

Expected

reports

Actual % Expected

reports

Actual %

Hoima 16 0 0 16 0 0 No M&E reports availed to audit for both teams

Kumi 16 6 38% 16 7 44% 13 out of 32 reports were availed to audit of which 6 were for technical and 7 for political monitoring teams.

Masindi 16 6 38% 16 0 0 6 out of 32 reports were availed to audit of which all were for technical monitoring team and no political monitoring reports availed to audit.

Mukono 16 7 44% 16 0 0 7 out of 32 reports were availed to audit of which all were for technical monitoring team and no political monitoring reports availed to audit.

Wakiso 16 2 13% 16 0 0 2 out of 32 reports were availed to audit of which all were for technical monitoring team and no political monitoring reports availed to audit.

Total 80 21 26 80 7

Source: Districts M&E reports availed for audit.

From the above table, in regard to technical monitoring, Mukono district performed

relatively better than the other districts visited with 7 out of 16 (48%) M & E reports

prepared followed by Masindi and Kumi districts which had 6 out of 16 (38%) reports,

while Wakiso and Hoima districts trailed with 2 and no M & E reports prepared,

respectively.

As far as political monitoring is concerned, with the exception of Kumi district which

had 7 out of 16 (44%) of expected M & E reports prepared, the rest of the four

districts visited did not prepare M & E reports.

In additional, even for the few reports that were made, there was no evidence on file

to show that the recommendations therein were implemented by the engineering

departments and no subsequent follow-ups were made by both teams.

47

The interviews conducted with respective districts top management teams attributed

the low levels of conducting M & E activities to a number of reasons as indicated

below:

Districts did not plan for M & E activities due to limited resources available.

Sectors did not remit the required funding to the district planners to plan, draw

schedules and implement M & E activities as required by the various funding

agencies indicated in the district operational guidelines.

It was an oversight not to include the road sector in their overall district M & E

reports.

Audit, however, attributed the failure to conduct M & E activities by both the technical

and political teams of the district administration to laxity and non prioritization of M &

E activities.

The districts’ technical and political teams did not carry out quarterly M&E activities on

the rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads as expected of them, despite the

expenditure of Shs.402,594,245 on M & E activities as indicated in Table No. 15

below:

Table No.15 showing district actual expenditure on M & E activities

FINANCIAL

YEAR

DISTRICTS AMOUNT

RELEASED

(SHS)

Hoima Kumi Masindi Mukono Wakiso

2007/08 30,885,349 0 0 0 74,354,902 105,240,251

2008/09 41,242,998 65,010,126 0 0 67,428,802 173,681,926

2009/10 26,659,916 53,233,152 0 0 43,779,000 123,672,068

2010/11 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 98,788,263 118,243,278 0 0 185,562,704 402,594,245

48

The quality of the road works executed were neither monitored nor evaluated as

expected and as a result no immediate corrective actions were taken, where

necessary, thus affecting the attainment of satisfactory works.

Management response

The districts management teams explained that they conduct multi-

sectoral monitoring and a single district report generated. There are no

specific M & E reports prepared for the rehabilitation and maintenance of

feeder roads.

Conclusion

Failure to plan and implement M&E activities as required by the implementation

manual and non observant of the M&E recommendations overrides the objectives of

M & E of ensuring that shoddy works and defects are detected and mitigated in a

precise and timely manner hence improving the quality of road works executed.

Recommendations

Districts should ensure that M&E activities are planned, budgeted for and

implemented as per work plan schedules.

District engineering departments should ensure that the recommendations made

by the M&E teams are taken seriously to and follow-ups made to attain

satisfactory road works.

Districts should ensure that their overall M&E reports prepared also include the

status of the rehabilitation and maintenance of feeder roads in their districts.

Districts should prioritize M&E activities on the rehabilitation and maintenance of

district feeder roads to ensure early detection of road defects so that corrective

measures are undertaken for better service delivery.

John F. S. Muwanga AUDITOR GENERAL KAMPALA 14TH FEBRUARY, 2012

I

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

TERMS DEFINITIONS

Road Way for vehicles and other types of traffic which may or may not be

lawfully usable by all traffic

National

Road/Trunks

Roads

These are main routes linking urban centers and Districts across the

international boundaries and are under the control of Uganda National

Roads Authority

Feeder Roads These are roads that connect communities, health center, markets and

Sub counties to service centers and fall under the control of District

Authorities

Urban Roads Roads within Cities, Municipalities and Towns that fall under the

control of Urban authorities

Community Access

Roads

Roads that link rural communities together, major trade centers

markets, and sub counties and fall under the control of Sub county

authorities

Routine Road

Maintenance

Works carried out continuously on a road such as keeping roads clear

of debris, repairing potholes and other minor defects, maintaining

shoulders, road side vegetation control, keeping pipe culverts and

maintenance of signs and signals to ensure there integrity

Periodic

Maintenance

Planned intervention to prevent ingress of water to the pavement and

restore the surface condition of the pavement, graveling, road shaping,

maintenance of Bridges and Culverts at interval of greater than one

year

Rehabilitation of

roads

Planned intervention to restore the road condition (Pavement, road

surface and drainage channels to the original state and this is usually

carried out at intervals of greater that one year)

Construction of

Roads

Planned intervention of providing a completely new road in a

community (Formation of road pavements, road surface and drainage

channels). This is a once for all activity

Good road It’s one with a good shape, smooth running surface, with roughness

less than 8m/Km with no water on the road during rains

Fair Road A road with reasonable shape corrugations and potholes up to 10 cm

deep and has some water on the road during rains

II

Bad Road A road with bad shape, deep depressions and potholes with much

water on road surface during rains

Optimal cost Is where less funds are spent to cover many kilo meters on the road

Technical

Committee

A team of experts and stakeholders mandated to develop standards in

a Specific area/field.

Stakeholders A group, organization or system who affects or can be affected by an

organization’s actions

III

Appendix I

District Organization structure

1. CAO. Chief Administrative Officer

2. DCAO. Deputy Chief Administrative Officer

3. Educ. Education Department

4. PRD. Production and Marketing department

5. Admin. Administration Department

6. Com. Based. Community based services department

7. NAT. Natural Resources Department

DISTRICT

COUNCIL

CAO

Finance

Educ. Health

Planning unit

PRDN Works Admin. Com.

based

SERVS

NAT.

RES.

D/CAO

Statutory

bodies

Internal audit unit

IV

Appendix I continued

STRUCTURE FOR WORKS DEPARTMENT

Administrative support staff:

Stenographer Secretary U5 1

Office typist U7 1

Office attendant U8 1

Driver U8 3

Plant operator U8 2 (One for grader and one for wheel loader)

Machine operator U8 1

DISTRICT ENGINEER – U1E

(1)

CIVIL ENGINEERING UNIT

SUPERINTENDENT OF

WORKS U4 (1)

BUILDING UNIT

ASSISTANT ENG.

OFFICER U7 (1)

ROAD UNIT

SECTION (ROAD

INSPECTOR – U6 (2)

V

Appendix II

Methodology AUDIT

QNS

ASSESSME

NT

DOCUMENT REVIEW PHYSICAL INSPECTION

AQN1 ASC1 - Review Development Plans,

Budgets, work plans and road

inventory survey reports to

ascertain the extent to which

districts are plan and use the

above document for feeder

roads maintenance.

Visit feeder roads worked on in

the years of 2006/07 to

December 2010 ascertain their

status.

AQN2 ASC2 Review documentations

pertaining the procurement

process to ascertain the

extent to which it has

affected maintenance of

feeder roads

AQN3 ASC3 Review Contract documents

(B.O.Qs, Agreements-

Specific conditions of

contracts (SCC)and General

conditions of contracts(GCC)

will show the details works to

be executed, time and cost

- Visit a feeder roads worked on

to ascertain whether works were

executed as per contract

document.

AQN4 ASC4 - Review all requisite

supporting document that

must be submitted before

effecting payment

AQN5 ASC5 - Review Monitoring and

evaluation reports prepared

after M & E exercises and

recommendations given there

in and follow up whether

their concerns are

implemented.

Visit all sites that were

questioned in the M & E reports

to ascertain the extent of

implementing recommendations.

VI

Appendix III

VII

Appendix III (b)

Showing district delays (days) in the procurement process of road works

District FY Road Name Delays in the procurement process/cycle (Days)

Remarks

Hoima 2007/8 Muteme – Mukabara - No documents availed

2008/9 Kitoba – Kyabasengya - No documents availed

2009/10 Kyabasengya – Kaboijana 16

2010/11 Kigorobya – Icukira – Kitoba (12.00KM)

14

Average delays 15

Kumi 2007/8 Mukongoro – Ngora - No documents availed

2008/9 Atoot – Kodike Sections B

(5.00Km)

Section C (3.50 Km)

10 279

Average 145

2009/10 Mukura – Ngora (10.00 Km) 22

2010/11 Mukongoro – Kamaca – Bukedea

(13.60 Km)

62

Average delays 76

Mukono 2007/8 Bugereka – Nakyeke – Kasawo (21.00 KM)

- No documents availed

2008/9 Bugereka – Nakyeke – Kasawo (21.00 KM)

25

2009/10 Wagala – Najjembe 14

2010/11 Kigombya – Seeta – Sezibwa (15K.00M)

100

Average delays 46

VIII

APPENDIX IV

AMOUNT SPENT ON DELAYED ROAD PROJECTS

District Financial

year

Road Name Delays in

implementation

Cost of road

works

(Shs)

Remarks

Hoima 2007/2008 Muteme –

Mukabara

Could not be

ascertained

Not

ascertained

Payment vouchers and

contract documents

missing

2008/2009 Kitoba –

Kyabasengya

2 months 32,071,463 Last certificate issued on

20/06/09 hence works

were delayed by

approximately 2 months.

No certificate of

completion of works

issued to date

(06/06/11) it’s not

possible to ascertain

actual completion date.

2009/2010 Kyabasengya –

Kaboijana

One and a half

(1 ½ ) months

29,205,070 Road works delayed to

start by one and a half

(1&1/2) month, this was

attributed to delayed

funding and lack of

capacity contractors to

implement works as

agreed

Sub

total

2 1 ¾ 61,276,533

Kumi 2007/2008 Mukongoro –

Ngora (6.50 Km)

1 ½ years 144,761,740

Works were delayed by

one year, 6 months and

3 days

IX

2008/2009 Atoot – Kodike

Sections B

(5.00Km) and C

(3.50 Km)

Section B

2 years and

twenty days

150,911,915

Section B

By audit time, the

contract had been over

delayed by 2 years and

twenty days

Section C

1 year, five

months and

thirteen days.

173,448,297

Section C

By audit time, the

contract had been over

delayed by 1 year, five

months and thirteen

days.

2009/2010 Mukura – Ngora

(10.00 Km)

1 year, two

months and

twenty days

203,581,400 By audit time, the

contract had been over

delayed by 1 year, two

months and twenty days

2010/2011 Mukongoro –

Kamaca –

Bukedea (13.60

Km)

1 month 469,121,952 By audit time all section

appeared to be behind

schedule and likely to be

rolled over.

Sub

total

4 9 1,141,825,304

Masindi 2007/2008 Bullima –

Byebega

1 year and 7

months

300,489,493 Road works were

delayed for 1 year and 7

months

Causes as explained by

the D.E:

Delays in funding

from the center

Time lags in

training road

inspectors and

contractor at Elgon

X

Technical school for

Labor based road

maintenance

2008/2009 Kigumba –

Apodorwa –

Mboira Road

Road works

abandoned

50,000,000 Road works not

complete to date, works

were abandoned due to

district machine break

down and limited

funding

2009/2010 Ibaralibi –

Alimongonza

Road

7 months 245,320,050 As per 31st may, 2011

works were still ongoing.

No certificate of

completion issued as this

was attributed to

Contractor lacked

capacity (i.e. Human

capacity, equipment’s

and financial) and issue

of funding coming late

2010/2011 Kitamba –

Kijunjubwa Road

3 months 200,000,000 Works still ongoing as at

31st may, 2011

Sub

total

4 22 795,809,543

Mukono 2007/2008 Bugereka –

Nakyeke –

Kasawo (21.00

KM)

Road works not

implemented

Not

ascertained

Road works not

implemented, there was

no funding for

rehabilitation of roads

over the financial year

2007/2008. This was

further backed up by the

Approved district budget

(See page 49)and

audited final accounts

(See page 44)

2008/2009 Bugereka –

Nakyeke –

Kasawo (21.00

KM)

3 months 149,977,7400= Phase 1

Payments certificates

were made before

signing of contract

XI

Phase 2

There was a delay in

completing the works,

work were supposed to

be completed by

30/03/09 according to

the ADWP but it was

completed on 30/06/09

after 3 months

2009/2010 Wagala –

Najjembe

9 months 399,834,250 Actual works started at

the end of 4th quarter

(June, 2010) FY

2009/2010 and

extended to 2nd

Quarter(October to

December, 2010) of FY

2010/2011

2010/2011

Kigombya –

Seeta – Sezibwa

(15K.00M)

3 months

149,998,000

Actual works started at

the end of 4th quarter FY

2010/2011

Sub

total

3 5 549,832,250

Wakiso 2007/2008 Namasuba -

Ndejje –

Kitiko(8.20KM)

3 months 84,690,524 Delayed by 1 quarter,

this was attributed to

delays in procurement

process and late release

of funds from the

center.

2009/2010 Kikondo – Sokolo

– Kasanje

(8.50KM)

7 months 154,990,000 Intended start date

Delayed by 8 months

and completion period

delayed by 7 months.

2010/2011 Nsangi –

Buloba(4.70

KM)

1 months 380,287,050 Intended start date

Delayed by 2 months

and completion period

XII

Buloba –

Kakiri

(13.90KM)

delayed by 1 month.

Sub

total

3 3 619,967,574

Grand

Total

3,168,711,204

XIII

APPENDIX V

UN-RECOVERED LIQUIDATED DAMAGES ON DELAYED DISTRICT ROAD PROJECTS

District Financial

year

Road Name Delays in

implementa

tion

Cost of road

works

(Shs)

Liquidated

damages

Max.

Damages

Recoverable

Damages

Hoima 2007/2008 Muteme –

Mukabara

Could not be

ascertained

0 0 0 0

2008/2009 Kitoba –

Kyabasengya

2 months 32,071,463 9,621,439 3,207,146 3,207,146

2009/2010 Kyabasengya

– Kaboijana

One and a

half (1&1/2)

month

29,205,070 6,571,141 2,920,507 2,920,507

Sub total 3 1 61,276,533 16,192,580 6,127,653 6,127,653

Kumi 2007/2008 Mukongoro –

Ngora (6.50

Km)

One year, 6

months and

3 days

144,761,740

396,647,168

14,476,174 14,476,174

2008/2009 Atoot –

Kodike

Sections B

(5.00Km) and

C (3.50 Km)

Section B

2 years and

twenty days

150,911,915

565,919,681 15,091,192 15,091,192

Section C

1 year, five

months and

thirteen

days.

173,448,297

457,903,504

17,344,830

17,344,830

XIV

2009/2010 Mukura –

Ngora (10.00

Km)

1 year, two

months and

twenty days

203,581,400 422,431,405 20,358,140 20,358,140

2010/2011 Mukongoro –

Kamaca –

Bukedea

(13.60 Km)

1 month 469,121,952 70,368,293 46,912,195 46,912,195

Sub total 4 9 1,141,825,304 1,913,270,051 114,182,531 114,182,531

Masindi 2007/2008 Bullima –

Byebega

1 year and 7

months

300,489,493 863,907,292 30,048,949 30,048,949

2008/2009 Kigumba –

Apodorwa –

Mboira Road

Road works

abandoned

50,000,000 0 0 0

2009/2010 Ibaralibi –

Alimongonza

Road

7 months 245,320,050 257,586,053 24,532,005 24,532,005

2010/2011 Kitamba –

Kijunjubwa

Road

3 months 200,000,000 90,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000

Sub total 4 22 795,809,543 1,211,493,345 74,580,954 74,580,954

Mukono 2007/2008 Bugereka –

Nakyeke –

Kasawo

(21.00 KM)

Road works

not

implemente

d

0 0 0 0

2008/2009 Bugereka –

Nakyeke –

Kasawo

(21.00 KM)

3 months 149,977,740 67,489,983 14,997,774 14,997,774

2009/2010 Wagala –

Najjembe

9 months 399,834,250 539,776,238 39,983,425 39,983,425

2010/2011

Kigombya –

Seeta –

Sezibwa

3 months

149,998,000

67,499,100 14,999,800 14,999,800

XV

(15K.00M)

Sub total 3 5 549,832,250 674,765,321 69,980,999 69,980,999

Wakiso 2007/2008 Namasuba -

Ndejje –

Kitiko(8.20K

M)

3 months 84,690,524 38,110,736 8,469,052 8,469,052

2009/2010 Kikondo –

Sokolo –

Kasanje

(8.50KM)

7 months 154,990,000 162,739,500 15,499,000 15,499,000

2010/2011 Nsangi –

Buloba(4

.70KM)

Buloba –

Kakiri

(13.90K

M)

1 months 380,287,050 57,043,058 38,028,705 38,028,705

Sub total 3 3 619,967,574 257,893,294 61,996,757 61,996,757

Grand

Total

3,168,711,204 4,073,614,591 326,868,894 326,868,894

XVI

Appendix VI

District road equipment inventory and status

District Road Equipment as per National Policy

HOIMA KUMI MASIND

I

MUKONO WAKIS

O

1 Grader 0 - 1 Old and

grounded

since

June

2010

1 Old and

grounded

since

2010

2 1 Grounded

since 2009

1 In running

condition

2 Running

3 Dump Trucks 2

Running 2 One

currently

running

One old

and

grounded

since

2002/3

FY

3 3

grounded

since

2005

2 All in running

condition

1 Running

1 Wheel Loader 0 0 - 1 Old and

grounded

since

2009

1 Old and

grounded

since

2007conditio

n

0

1 Excavator 1 Running 1 Old and

grounded

since

June

2010

0 - 0 - 1 Running

1Tractor 1 Old and

grounde

d since

January,

2010

0 - 2 Old and

grounded

2 Old and

grounded

0

XVII

1 Motor roller 1 Old and

grounde

d

1 Old and

grounded

since FY

2002/3

1 Old and

grounded

since

2009

1 Old and

grounded

since 2007

1 Running

1 Motor Bowser 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 Running 1 Running

1 Pick-up 0 - 2 1

Running

1

grounded

since

January

2011

0 - 1 Grounded 2 Running

2 Motorcycles 0 - 4 New 2 OK 2 All running 3 Running

1 Pedestrian roller

0 - 0 - 2 Broken

down

since

2008

0 - 0

1 Concrete Mixer 0 - 1 Old but

operation

al

0 - 0 - 0

1 Bulldozer 0 - 0 1 Old and

grounded

since

2009

1 Old and

grounded

since 2005

0

15 5

12 13 13 11

XVIII

Appendix VII

District staffing levels in the PDU and Engineering Departments

DISTRICT PROCUREMENT AND

DISPOSAL UNIT (PDU)

VARIANCE ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT

VARIANCE

REQUIRED

STAFF

EXISTING

STAFF

REQUIRED

STAFF

EXISTING

STAFF

Hoima One Senior

Procurement

Officer

0 1 One District

Engineer

1 0

One

Procurement

Officer

1 0 One

Supervisor of

Works

(Roads)

1 0

One

Assistant

Procurement

Officers

1 0 One Senior

Asst.

Engineering

Officer

(Mechanics)

0 1

Two Road

Inspectors

1 1

District

Total

3 2 1 (33%) 5 3 2 (40%)

Kumi One Senior

Procurement

Officer

0 1 One District

Engineer

0 1

One

Procurement

Officer

1 0 One

Supervisor of

Works

(Roads)

1 0

One

Assistant

Procurement

Officers

1 0 One Senior

Asst.

Engineering

Officer

(Mechanics)

0 1

XIX

Two Road

Inspectors

2 0

District

Total

3 2 1(33%) 5 3 2 (40%)

Masindi One Senior

Procurement

Officer

1 0 One District

Engineer

1 0

One

Procurement

Officer

0 1 One

Supervisor of

Works

(Roads)

1 0

One

Assistant

Procurement

Officers

1 0 One Senior

Asst.

Engineering

Officer

(Mechanics)

1 0

Two Road

Inspectors

2 0

District

Total

3 2 1 (33%0 5 5 0 (0%)

Mukono One Senior

Procurement

Officer

1 0 One District

Engineer

1 0

One

Procurement

Officer

1 0 One

Supervisor of

Works

(Roads)

1 0

One

Assistant

Procurement

Officers

1 0 One Senior

Asst.

Engineering

Officer

(Mechanics)

0 1

Two Road

Inspectors

2 0

District

Total

3 3 0 (0%) 5 4 1 (20%)

XX

Wakiso One Senior

Procurement

Officer

0 1 One District

Engineer

0 1

One

Procurement

Officer

1 0 One

Supervisor of

Works

(Roads)

1 0

One

Assistant

Procurement

Officers

1 0 One Senior

Asst.

Engineering

Officer

(Mechanics)

0 1

Two Road

Inspectors

2 0

District

Total

3 2 1 (33%) 5 3 2 (40%)

XXI

Appendix VIII

Time taken by mechanical workshops to repair district road equipment (At the

time of Inspection)

a) Bugembe Mechanical Workshop

S/NO DISTRICT/

INSTITUTION

TYPE OF EQUIPMENT DATE

BROUGHT IN

TIME OF

INSPECTION

TIME SPENT

(MONTHS)

1 Kabairamaido Grader: LG0002-46 29/7/09 13/12/11 28

2 Mpigi Grader: LG0002-34 16/6/11 13/12/11 5

3 Luwero Wheel Loader LG0040-27 27/11/08 13/12/11 36

4 Nakasongola Trascavator: LG0009-37 22/7/11 13/12/11 4

5 Mayunge Grader 4/4/11 13/12/11 8

Average Time 16

b) Mbarara Mechanical Workshop

S/NO DISTRICT/

INSTITUTION

TYPE OF EQUIPMENT DATE

BROUGHT IN

TIME OF

INSPECTION

TIME SPENT

(MONTHS)

1 Rakai Grader: LG0029-41 8/2/11 16/12/11 10

2 Kisoro Dumper: LG0013-21 5/2/10 16/12/11 22

3 Kisoro Tractor: LG0020-21 4/2/10 16/12/11 22

4 Mbarara Bull Dozer: UA 1219 3/11/08 16/12/11 37

5 Mbarara Motorized Roller: 17/6/10 16/12/11 18

6 Masaka Bull Dozer: LG0005-28 25/6/09 16/12/11 29

7 Kabarole Pneumatic Roller Since 2008 16/12/11 36

8 Mbarara Dumper: LG 0147-31 24/2/10 16/12/11 9

9 State House Bull Dozer: UW 1066 7/7/11 16/12/11 5

10 Rakai Back Hoe 3/6/10 16/12/11 18

XXII

11 Mbarara Dumper: LG00148-31 28/7/10 16/12/11 17

12 Masaka Grader: LG0106- 28 23/11/11 16/12/11 1

13 Rukungiri Wheel Loader: LG 0006-42 7/7/11 16/12/11 5

14 Sembabule Tipper Truck: LG 0042-43 20/9/09 16/12/11 26

15 Kisoro Dumper: LG0014-21 28/3/11 16/12/11 8

16 Kanungu Dumper: LG0013-42 22/6/10 16/12/11 17

17 Bushenyi Dumper: LG0010-42 20/5/11 16/12/11 6

18 Insingiro Nissan Double Cabin 3/5/11 16/12/11 7

Average

Time

16