AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORTAuditor General, R.L. AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT ... and the Ministry of Public Works Standard Specification for Roads 2011. ... construction of roads and bridges

Auditor General’s Report on the

Complaince Audit of the Construction of Roads

and Bridges by the Ministry Of Public Works

For the Fiscal Period ended June 30, 2016

0 Promoting Accountability of Public Resources

On the Compliance Audit of the

Construction of Roads and Bridges by the

Ministry Of Public Works

For the Fiscal Period ended June 30,

2016

February 2020

Yusador S. Gaye, CPA, CGMA

Auditor General, R.L.

AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT






Table of Contents

1. DETAILED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................ 9

1.1 Inadequate Contract Agreements /Deficient Contract Agreements for works ................. 9

1.2 Advance Payment without a Guarantee ..................................................................... 9

1.3 Consequence and Remedy in case of party’s failure to fulfill their obligations .............. 11

1.4 Environmental Consideration .................................................................................. 12

1.5 Price Adjustment ................................................................................................... 12

1.6 Change in Contract Value without Due Process......................................................... 14

1.7 Payments without Proper Certificates of Completion ................................................. 15

1.8 Lack of due regard for Quality Control and Quality Assurance .................................... 16

1.9 Payment not in line with BOQ ................................................................................. 18

1.10 Payment on Letter to Proceed without proof of Consultation with Justice Minister ....... 19

1.11 Change of Variation Orders without due process ...................................................... 21

1.12 Construction of Box Culvert .................................................................................... 22

1.13 Change sizes of Bridges without Price Adjustment and approval ................................ 23

1.14 Field Verification Findings ....................................................................................... 24

1.15 Rehabilitation of the road from Gbarma to Weasua ................................................... 31

1.16 Rehabilitation of the Road Project from Nimba Junction to Nyanfueh Town................. 38

1.17 Rehabilitation of Marshall Road ............................................................................... 42

2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................ 45






ACRONYMS

Abbreviation Meaning

AG Auditor General

ANL Act of National Legislature

BC Box Culvert

BOQ Bill of Quantity

CGMA Certified Global Management Accountant

CMP Corrugated Metal Pipes

CPA Certified Public Accountant

GAC General Auditing Commission

GOL Government of Liberia

IFMIS Integrated Financial Management Information System

INTOSAI International Organization Supreme Audit Institutions

MFDP Ministry of Finance Development Planning

MPW Ministry of Public Works

PFM Public Financial Management

PPCA Public Procurement Concession Act

RAP Resettlement Action Plan

RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipes

SAI Supreme Audit Institutions






Compliance Audit Report on the Administration of Contracts by the Ministry of Public

Works of Liberia covering the Period 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016.

We have audited the Administration of Contracts by the Ministry of Public Works on the construction

of roads and bridges nationwide in compliance with the relevant laws and regulations for the period

ended 30 June 2016 consistent with the Auditor General’s mandate as provided for in Section 2.1.3

of the General Auditing Commission (GAC) Act of 2014 as well as the Audit Engagement Terms of

Reference (ToR).

Management's Responsibilities

According to Part I section 11 of the Public Financial Management Regulation, management is responsible for the preparation and presentation of these financial statements in accordance with International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS). This responsibility includes the design, implementation and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

The Management of MPW is responsible for the Administration of Contracts in compliance with the

approved Annual Budget for the fiscal period, Public Financial Management Act of 2009, Public

Procurement and Concession Act of 2005 as amended and Restated 2010 and all their accompanying

Regulations, the Revenue Code of 2000 and the Ministry of Public Works Standard Specification for

Roads 2011.

The Management of MPW is also responsible for the tendering process, administration and monitoring

of contracts entered into by the Entity, ensuring that the contractors comply with the specifications,

designs and drawing, schedule of quantities and terms of the contract as well as the issue of financial

transactions and cost control during the construction stage consistent with the requirements of those

stated Acts and Regulations for the purpose of effectiveness and efficiencies of Contract Management,

Quality Controls and Quality Assurances.

The Management of MPW is also responsible for the approval of variation orders and changes

in contract costs for price adjustment and the storage or provision of contract documents

such as approved variation orders, site meeting minutes, monthly progress reports, payments

certificates, measurement sheets and financial records in accordance with the terms of local

agreements and stated laws and regulations.

Auditor's Responsibilities

Our responsibility is to independently express a conclusion based on the audit, whether the

Administration of Contract for the construction of roads and bridges by the Management of Public

Works were carried out in compliance with the approved Annual Budget for the fiscal period, Public

Finance Management Act of 2009 and its accompanying Regulations, Public Procurement and

Concessions Act of 2005 as amended and restated 2010 and its accompanying Regulations, the

Revenue Code of 2000 and the Ministry of Public Works Standard Specification for Roads 2011.






The audit was conducted in accordance with ISSAI 4000 and INTOSAIs international standards for

Compliance Audit. Those standards require that we comply with ethical requirements and plan and

perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the MPW’s Management complied,

in all material respects, with laws and regulations for the Fiscal Year ended 30 June 2016.

An audit involves performing procedures to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence to support our

conclusion. The procedures performed depend on the auditor's professional judgment, including

assessing the risk of material non-compliance, whether due to fraud or error. The audit procedures

performed are those we believe are appropriate in the circumstances. We believe that the audit

evidence gathered is sufficient and appropriate to provide the basis for our conclusion.

Basis for Adverse Conclusion

The MPW Management made advanced payments to contractors amounting to US$ 6,057,470.80 for

construction works without evidence of performance guarantee or bond to mitigate any risk of non

performance/default.

A total of six (6) contracts awarded that upward price adjustments were done in an amount of

US$1,229,459.99 without a provision in the contract as required.

The contract for the rehabilitation of Brewerville to Bopolu Road Project was increased by US$

2,319,295.17 without following the required procurement procedure.

The ‘Certificates of Completion’ prepared by the MPW Management did not have any supporting

measurement sheets for completed works such as detailed summary schedule of material quantities

for earth works, drainage construction, and demolition and mobilization charges.

Payments related to the construction and rehabilitation of roads and bridges did not show quality

control and quality assurance compliance requirements as indicated in the contract document.

The Management of MPW provided no evidence of independent laboratory or physical tests

undertaken by the Division of Soil and Material Testing for soils, bituminous materials, chemical,

concrete, and environmental check before payments were made.

There were changes in quantities and rates for earthworks and drainage construction resulting to

increased cost of US$731,644.00.

Payments amounting to US$10,387,216.02 were made under Letter to Proceed without evidence of

consultation with the Auditor General of Republic of Liberia in keeping with the National Budget Law

of FY 2014/2015.

There were Change of Variation Orders of the Gbarma to Weasua and Nimba Junction to Nyanfueh

Town Road Projects without approval costing US$211,600.00






There was change from Bridges to Box Culverts of the Nimba Junction to Nyanfueh Town Road

Projects without approval costing US$ 206,860.80.

There was change in the sizes of bridges at the Nimba Junction Junction to Nyanfueh Town Road

Projects without price adjustment and approval costing US$ 443,544.99.

Adverse Conclusion

Based on the audit work performed, we found that, because of the significance of the matter noted

in the Basis for Adverse Conclusion paragraph’s above, the Management of Ministry of Public Works

is not in compliance, in all material respects, with the provisions of the Public Procurement and

Concession Act of 2005 as Amended and Restated 2010 as well as the Public Financial Management

Act of 2009 for the Administration of Contract for the construction of Roads and Bridges for the Fiscal

Period ended 30 June 2016.

Monrovia, Liberia

February 2020






Introduction (Background)

The Department of Public Works was created by an Act of the National Legislature in 1928. It was

later changed to Ministry of Public Works under the Executive Law of 1972 to adequately administer

the engineering component of the State in terms of surveying, drafting/designing, construction and

supervision, to improve and maintain, direct or by contract all highways, bridges, roads, streets,

airport, seaport, and all other public infrastructure in the Republic of Liberia.

A Compliance audit of the Administration of Contract for the construction of roads and bridges by the

Ministry of Public of Works for the fiscal period ended June 30, 2014 was conducted in accordance

with the provisions of Section 2.1.3 of the GAC Act of 2014 and ISSAI 4000 INTOSAIs international

standards for Compliance Audit.

For the period under audit, the Ministry of Public of Works had the following management personnel

who handled the administration of the Ministry.

Key Management Personnel

No. NAME POSITION TENURE

1 Hon. William Gyude Moore Minister 2014--2018

2. Mr. Roland Lafayette Giddings Deputy Minister for Administration 2015--2018

3. Mr. Langley Claude Deputy Minister for Technical

Services

2015--Present

4 Mr. Abraham Samukai Financial Comptroller 2015—Present

Management’s Responsibilities

The management of MPW is responsible for the Administration of Contract for the construction of

roads and bridges in compliance with the approved Annual Budget for the fiscal period, Public Finance

Management Act of 2009 and its accompanying Regulations, Public Procurement and Concessions Act

of 2005 as amended and restated 2010 and its accompanying Regulations, the Revenue Code of 2000

and the Ministry of Public Works Standard Specification for Roads 2011.

Auditor’s Responsibilities

The auditor is responsible to express a conclusion on whether the Administration of Contract for the

construction of roads and bridges by the Management of Public Works were carried out in compliance

with the approved Annual Budget for the fiscal period, Public Finance Management Act of 2009 and

its accompanying Regulations, Public Procurement and Concessions Act of 2005 as amended and

restated 2010 and its accompanying Regulations, the Revenue Code of 2000 and the Ministry of Public

Works Standard Specification for Roads 2011. The audit was conducted in accordance with ISSAI

4000 and INTOSAIs international standards for Compliance Audit. These standards require that we

comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance

about whether MPW Management complied with laws and regulations.

Subject Matter

The subject matter of the compliance audit:






Administration of Contracts

The Ministry is mandated to plan, draft, design supervise construct and maintain all public

infrastructures. An Act of the National Legislature passed in 2008 transferred the functions of the

dissolved Ministry of Rural Development to MPW, hence establishing the Department of Rural

Development.

During the period under audit the Ministry of Public Works had a budgetary allotment of US$

35,553,141.00 for the construction of roads and bridges. The Management of MPW disbursed an

amount of 25,328,597.00 for the rehabilitated 379km of laterite roads and 24.3km of asphalt

pavement in the counties, including installation to water crossing sections with reinforced concrete

pipes (RCP), culverts, box culverts and concrete bridges; replace all corrugated metal pipes (CMPs)

and construct three hundred thirty five (335) RCP; construct eight (8) Box culverts as per the designs

and specifications; rehabilitated four (4) bridges and construct six (6) new bridges on these laterite

roads nationwide.

Audit objective and Scope

Administration of Contracts

The objective of the audit was to establish whether the Management of the Public Works complied

with the provisions of the approved Annual Budget for the fiscal period, Public Finance Management

Act of 2009 and its accompanying Regulations, Public Procurement and Concessions Act of 2005 as

amended and restated 2010 and its accompanying Regulations, the Revenue Code of 2000 and the

Ministry of Public Works Standard Specification for Roads 2011.

The scope of the audit covers the fiscal period July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016.

Audit Criteria

The following criteria were used:

o Section 40 of the Public Procurement and Concession Act of 2005 amended and restated

2010 – Procurement Planning

o Section 41 of the Public Procurement and Concession Act of 2005 amended and restated

2010 – Contract Administration

o Section 24 of the Public Financial Management Act of 2009 – Contract and Procurement

o Regulation P.4 of the Public Financial Management Regulation – Control of Commitment

against Procurement Plan

o Regulation P.5 of the Public Financial Management Regulation – Contract and Procurement

o Regulation 18 of the Public Procurement and Concession Regulation – Contract

Administration






Audit Methodology

We performed our audit based on review of contract documents (Bill of Quantities (BOQs),

specification, drawings and designs, financial records and payment vouchers) related to the period

under audit, interviewing MPW staff as well as physical verification of project sites. The audit criteria

were applied to each procurement sample selected. We have documented the findings and given to

management for comments.

The audit team obtained 65% of the total amount of US$ 25,328,597.00 disbursed for construction

of roads and bridges and confirmed whether they were in compliance with the Terms of the Contract

as require by the Public Financial Management Act of 2009 and its accompanying Regulations, Public

Procurement and Concessions Act of 2005 as amended and restated in 2010 and its accompanying

Regulations. .

The audit criteria were applied to each procurements sample selected. The findings were documented

and given to management for comments. On the basis of findings, the conclusion was made on

whether the Management of MPW complied with the provisions of the Public Financial Management

Act of 2009 and its accompanying Regulations, Public Procurement and Concessions Act of 2005 as

amended and restated in 2010 and its accompanying Regulations which related to Contract

Administration.

Limitation of Responsibility We reviewed the activities and systems on the administration of contracts monitored and supervised

by the Ministry of Public Works’ Management only to the extent we considered necessary for the

effective conduct of this audit. As a result, our review may not have detected all weaknesses that

existed or all improvements that could be made.






1. DETAILED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1.1 Inadequate Contract Agreements /Deficient Contract Agreements for works

Observation

1.1.1.1 Section 49 (3-e) of the PPC Act of 2005, as amended and restated 2010 states that “General

and special conditions of contract shall be of a kind generally used in international trade.”

1.1.1.2 It was observed that the general and specific conditions of contract used for international

trade were omitted and inconsistent in all the projects reviewed. The contracts for road

works were deficient in the following ways:

• There was omission of requirements for advance payment guarantees

• There were no remedies in case parties failed to fulfil their obligations in time

• There was no consideraton of environmental issues

• The agreements were not in line with the Bill of Quantities for some items

• The contract agreements included redundant items like external supervisor

• The use of different BOQ at contract and payment

• The change of Variation Orders without due process

• The field verification findings

1.2 Advance Payment without a Guarantee

1.2.1.1 Section 60 (1) (2, d) of the PPC Act of 2010 provides that “The bidding documents may

require bidders to submit a bid security, which shall be applied to all bidders. Bid security

requirements shall comply with any applicable regulations. Forfeiture of a bid security may

be imposed only in the event of: (d) Failure by the successful bidder to provide security for

the performance of the contract if required to do so by the bidding documents.”

1.2.1.2 During the period under audit, we noted payments to contractors amounting to US$

6,057470.80 related to advance payment for construction works which did not provide

requirements that shield the Ministry from loss. The contracts required the contractors to

provide security for the performance of the contract. There was no evidence of guarantee

reserved in the name of the Ministry and payable on cashing it from the bank. The following

table illustrates the aforementioned contracts. See table 1 below for detail.

Table 1: Payments Without Evidence of Guarantee

No. DATE DESCRIPTION CONTRACTOR PAYMENT VALUE

US$

1. 8-Jan-16 Payment for start-up and mobilization of

the rehabilitation on the road from Gbarma

to Weasua.

East International

900,000.00

2. 22-Dec-15 Payment for the emergency rehabilitation

of the Nimba Junction- Nyanfueh Town

roads.

Solid Rock

720,665.00






No. DATE DESCRIPTION CONTRACTOR PAYMENT VALUE

US$

3. 29-Mar-16 Payment for forty percent (40%)

completion of rehabilitation 147 km road

from Ganta Nimba County to Toe Town.

MDMC 1,000,000.00

4. 1-Apr-16

Payment for the emergency repair of the

Samuel K. Doe Boulevard Road in

paynesville beginning Tubman boulevard

intersection and ending at the Somilia

drive intersection.

CHICO

1,000,000.00

5. 3-May-16 Payment advance for 40% of the contract

price for work on the corridor from the

intersection of Robert field highway and

Marshall in Margibi County.

SSF

768,085.30

6. 4-May-16 Payment advance for 35% of contract

price.

SSF

668,720.50

7. 4--May-16 Payment of 100% completion of the

emergency rehabilitation of Brewerville

road in Montserrado to Bopolu in Gbarpolu

County.

PGL

1,000,000.00

Total 6,057,470.80

Risk

1.2.1.3 The failure by the contractor to provide bid security may lead to loss in the event of an

unfortunate situation (such as insolvency of the contractor).

1.2.1.4 The failure by MPW Management to consider general and special conditions of contract

used in international trade in awarding of contracts could lead to financial losses or derail

the projects.

Recommendation

1.2.1.5 The MPW Management should provide justification for not obtaining bid security equivalent

to the contractual value.

1.2.1.6 Going forward, the MPW Management should ensure that performance guarantee (bid

security) be provided by all contractors, store in the name of the Ministry until project

completion upon which it will be returned to the contractor.

1.2.1.7 Also, in awarding contracts, we recommend that the MPW Management should consider

the general and specific conditions of contract used for international trade.






Management’s Response

1.2.1.8 Management acknowledged the findings and recommendations and will be responsible for

the evaluation and possible implementation to ensure that performance guarantee be

provided by contractors and stored by the Ministry until project completion. MPW’s

Management will ensure all necessary general and specific conditions of contracts for both

local and international trade are considered in awarding a contract base on the threshold.

1.2.1.9 Because of the financial resource limitation of Government to sponsor the projects in time,

management obtains performance guarantee for three to four months.

Auditor General’s Position

1.2.1.10 We acknowledge Management’s acceptance of the recommendation and we look forward

to its timely implementation. However, Management is in breach of Sections 49 (3-e) and

60 (1) (2, d) of the PPC Act of 2005, as amended and restated 2010.

1.3 Consequence and Remedy in case of party’s failure to fulfill their obligations

Observation

1.3.1.1 Section 119, (1) (s & t), of the PPC Act of 2005, as amended and restated in 2010,

prescribes that “To the extent that the bid documents do not provide that contract

provisions set forth in the bid documents are non-negotiable, the Negotiation Team shall

take the following into account, within the context of existing laws, in its negotiations with

the prospective concessionaire: project failure and remedies, if any, and breach of

contract/events of default”

1.3.1.2 During the audit, it was noted that all contracts related to road works were deficient in the

following ways: (a) there was no consequence of delay/failure by the parties to fulfill their

obligations as required and (b) no remedies for the parties’ delay/failure to fulfill such

obligations. Meaning the Negotiation Team or the crafter of the contract did not take into

consideration these mentioned requirements during the acceptance of the bid and

signature of the contract.

Risk

1.3.1.3 Failure by Management of MPW to specify a liability cap (the consequence and remedies

for delay/failure to fulfill contractual obligation) within the contracts lead to loss of public

funds and non-attainment of contract objective.

Recommendation

1.3.1.4 Management of MPW should provide explanation why it developed contract agreement

without incorporating safeguards for possible liabilities.


1.3.1.5 Management acknowledged the findings and recommendations. The Legal Division will take

the steps to ensure that this recommendation is communicated in the contract and/or

specifications.








to its timely implementation. However, Management is in breach of Section 119, (1) (s &

t), of the PPC Act of 2005, as amended and restated in 2010.

1.4 Environmental Consideration

Observation

1.4.1.1 American Standard Testing and Materials (ASTM) E2365 as adopted by the MPW

Management requires the adoption of procedures and practices which promote the

adherence of road construction companies and organization to environmental health and

safety for compliance.

1.4.1.2 It was observed during the period under audit that all contracts negotiated and awarded

by the Management of MPW for rehabilitation and construction of roads and bridges in the

country were without environmental health and safety compliance.

Risk

1.4.1.3 The negotiation and award of contracts for the construction and rehabilitation of roads and

bridges by the MPW Management in the absence of the consideration of environmental

compliance may lead to future disaster.

Recommendation

1.4.1.4 The MPW Management should provide explanation why the contracts were awarded

without the consideration of environmental issues.


1.4.1.5 The need to follow procedures has been and will continue to be communicated to involve

contractors and personnel for compliance. Management acknowledged the findings and

recommendations.



to its timely implementation.

1.5 Price Adjustment

Observation

1.5.1.1 Section 19(1)(2)(3) of the PPC Act of 2005 amended and restated 2010 states that

“Pursuant to section 42 of the Act, the Procuring Entity shall not adjust the price in the

procurement contract unless the procurement contract permits:






a. the price adjustment

b. states the circumstance for the adjustment and

c. provides for the formula or method for the determination of the

adjustment.

1.5.1.2 Where provision is made for price adjustment, an adequate contingency amount shall be

provided in each contract to cater for possible upward adjustment.

1.5.1.3 Pursuant to section 42(3) of the PPC Act, the procurement contract may also stipulate the

maximum percentage of the initial price or the remaining price for which an upward

adjustment may be permitted.

1.5.1.4 It was observed from the analysis of six (6) contracts awarded for the consultancy,

construction and rehabilitation of roads and bridges that upward price adjustment was done

for the contract for rehabilitation from Ganta to Toe town, Nimba Junction to Nyanfueh

Town, Consultancy for Police Academy Road, Ganta to Cestos Bridge, Cesto Bridge to

Zedru, Gbarnga to Zorzor and Marshall Road Project in an amount of US$1,223,609.99

without a provision for upward price adjustment in the contract as required. See table 2

below for details.

Table 2: Price Adjustment

N0

.

Contract/

Project

Description Contractors BOQ

Amount

US $

Auditor

Amount

US $

Variance

US $

1. Ganta to

Toe Town

Overestimation of

quantities for

Earthwork, and

extra unnecessary

scarification cost

MDMC

433,177.50

238,050.00 195,127.50

2. Nimba

Junction to

Nyanfueh

Town

Extra 17.4km for

the estimation of

earth works

Solid Rock

Investment,

Inc.

1,342,500.00

1,125,000.00 217,500.00

3. Police

Academy

Road

Project

Extra 3.79km for

the estimation of

consultancy

Tri-Star

Collaborative

Engineering

and

Consultants,

Inc.

156,589.60

66,532.76 90,056.84

4.

Cesto

Bridge to

Zedru

Doubling of

80.77km as

quantities for the

estimation of

clearing

vegetation, and V-

MDMC

19,788.65






N0

.

Contract/

Project

Description Contractors BOQ

Amount

US $

Auditor

Amount

US $

Variance

US $

shape ditching at

both sides of

roadway

39,577.30 19,788.65

5. Gbarnga to

Zorzor

Extra Unit Price

for Earthworks

West Wood

Company

1,391,500.00

1,150,000.00 241,500.00

6. Marshall

Road

Project

Overestimation of

quantities for

Earthwork ( R-

322.1, 322.2,

350.1, 350.2, 115

& 126 )

S.S.F.

Entrepreneur,

Inc.

12,535,400.00

12,075,763.00 459,637.00

Total 1,223,609.99

Risk

1.5.1.5 The upward adjustment of prices by the MPW Management without a provision in the

contract could lead to conflict of interest and the loss of public resources.

Recommendation

1.5.1.6 The Management of the MPW should provide substantive justification for the upward

adjustment of the contract price without a stipulated provision in the contractual

agreement.


1.5.1.7 The contracts were awarded in keeping with PPC Act & Regulations and also the works

were done in accordance to the contract scope of works provided by the Ministry of Public

Works.


1.5.1.8 The Management’s assertion that the projects were executed “in keeping with PPC Act &

Regulations and also the contract scope of works provided by the Ministry of Public Works”,

is not materially supported. The conditions for upward price adjustment were not satisfied

to substantiate the price adjustment. Going forward, Management should ensure that the

circumstances for the adjustment and the formula or method for the determination of the

adjustment are in compliance with Sections 19(1)(2)(3) and 42(3) of the PPC Act of 2005

amended and restated 2010.

1.6 Change in Contract Value without Due Process

Observation

1.6.1.1 Section 3.10 (a) of the MPW Standard Specification for Roads 2011 requires that ‘‘in

computing the final contract amount, payment shall be based on the actual quantity of






authorized work done in accordance with the Specifications and Drawings. The tendered

rates shall apply, subject to the provisions of the General Conditions of Contract,

irrespective of whether the actual quantities are more or less than the scheduled

quantities.’’

1.6.1.2 It was observed during the period under audit that the contract amount for contractual

agreement between the Management of MPW and PGL Construction Company for the

rehabilitation of Brewerville to Bopolu Road Project was increased by US$ 2,319,295.17

without following due procedure. The contract agreement provided no evidence that new

scope of works was introduced. See table 3 below for detail.

Table 3: Change in Contract Value

NO. Description

Old amount

(Approved in

original BOQ)

US $

New amount (un

approved)

US $

Difference

US $

1 Demolition and site

clearance 136,750.00 663,687.50 526,937.50

2 Earthworks 3,793,562.50 5,585,757.50 1,792,195.00

3 Drainage works 1,065,473.33 1,065,636 162.67

TOTAL 2,319,295.17

Risk

1.6.1.3 Failure by the MPW Management to follow due procurement procedure for adjusting

contract price may deny the achievement of value for money.

Recommendation

1.6.1.4 The MPW Management should provide justification for increasing contract value without

adherence to due procurement procedures.


1.6.1.5 The contract was awarded in keeping with PPC Act & Regulations and also the works were

done in accordance to the contract scope of works provided by the Ministry of Public Works.


1.6.1.6 The Management’s assertion that the “contract was executed in keeping with PPC Act &

Regulations and contract scope of works provided by the Ministry of Public Works” is not

materially supported. Going forward, Management should ensure that the circumstances

for the increment in contract value are consistent with the MPW Standard Specification for

Roads 2011.

1.7 Payments without Proper Certificates of Completion

1.7.1.1 Section 3.5 MPW Standard Specifications of Roads 2011 states that “ the onus rests with

the contractor to produce work which confirms in quality and accuracy of detail to all the

requirements of the Specifications and Drawings, and the Contractor shall, at his own






expense, institute a quality control system and provide experienced engineers, foremen,

surveyors, materials technicians and other technical staff, together with all transport,

instruments and equipment, to ensure adequate supervision and positive control of the

Works at all times.”

1.7.1.2 Additionally, Section 3.11 MPW Standard Specifications of Roads 2011 states that “a

Certificate of Completion of the works in terms of the relevant clause of the General

Conditions of Contract will be issued only if the following sections of the works as may be

applicable have, inter alia, been duly completed: (a) the gravel wearing course, seals,

asphalt or concrete pavement; (b) all above-ground and subsoil drainage structures; (c) all

fencing; (d) the finishing-off of medians and slopes of cuts and fills; (e) all the necessary

road signs and road-surface markings; (f)all guardrails; (g) all structures.”

1.7.1.3 The audit team noted during the period under audit that all the request for payment related

to civil works which were prepared by MPW Management had Certificate of Completion;

however, the Certificates of Completion did not have any supporting measurement sheets

for completed works such as detailed summary schedule of material quantities for earth

works, drainage construction, and demolition and mobilization charges.

Risk

1.7.1.4 The failure to provide supporting measurement sheets and other documents for

construction contract could lead to payment for low quality work, thereby denying value

for money.

Recommendation

1.7.1.5 MPW Management should ensure that all payment requests are supported by adequate

documentation clearly stating the level of construction work completed.


1.7.1.6 Management acknowledged the findings and recommendations. The Technical Division at

MPW will take the steps to ensure the recommendations are communicated to the relevant

personnel, or engineers for implementation.




1.8 Lack of due regard for Quality Control and Quality Assurance

Observation

1.8.1.1 Section 3.5 (Paragraph.2) of MPW Standard Specifications of Roads 2011 provides that “the

contractor shall conduct tests or have them conducted continuously on a regular basis, to

check the properties of natural materials and processed natural materials and of products






manufactured on the site, such as concrete and asphalt. Although not a requirement for

the Contractor to conduct regular test on any commercially produced products such as

cement, bitumen, steel and pipes, the Contractor shall remain fully responsible for any

defective material or equipment provided by him. Similarly, the quality of all elements of

the Works shall be checked on a regular basis so as to ensure compliance with the specified

requirement. The intensity of control and of tests to be conducted by the Contractor in

terms of these obligations is not specified but shall be adequate to ensure that proper

control is being exercised.”

1.8.1.2 During the period under review, the audit team noted that payments related to the

construction and rehabilitation of roads and bridges did not show quality control and quality

assurance compliance requirements as indicated by the contract documentation. Also, the

Management of MPW provided no evidence of independent laboratory or physical tests

undertaken by the Division of Soil and Material Testing of soils, bituminous materials,

chemical, concrete, and environmental check before payments are made.

Risk

1.8.1.3 The absence of quality control and quality assurance compliance requirements may lead to

substandard road, failure of material properties, road shape and drainage structure.

Recommendation

1.8.1.4 The MPW Management should provide justification for not ensuring that quality control and

assurance requirements were met before payments were made.

1.8.1.5 Also, the Division for Materials and Soils Testing at the MPW responsible for conducting

independent laboratory or physical tests should explain why no evidence of tests or data

to confirm tests conducted.

1.8.1.6 The Division for Materials and Soils Testing at the MPW should ensure that various tests

conducted in accordance with AASHTO or ASMT are stored by the Division at the MPW for

auditor review.


1.8.1.7 Management acknowledged the findings and recommendations. The Division of Soil and

Material Testing at MPW is taking the steps to ensure contractors follow procedures to

communicate the Division with various laboratory test results for audit review purpose.









1.9 Payment not in line with BOQ

Observation

1.9.1.1 Section 3.10 (a) MPW Standard Specifications of Roads 2011 states that, “In computing

the final contract amount, payment shall be based on the actual quantity of authorized

work done in accordance with the specification and drawing. The tendered rates shall apply,

subject to the provisions of the general conditions of contract, irrespective of whether the

actual quantities are more or less than the scheduled quantities.”

1.9.1.2 It was observed during the audit that different BOQ was used for contract and payment for

Police Academic and SKD Boulevard Road. Some of the items under earthwork and drainage

construction for Police Academic and S.K.D. Boulevard road projects changed in quantities

and rates, resulting to cost increase of US$731,644.00. See table below

Table 4: Use of different BOQs at contract and payment

S/N Contract/Project Descriptions Initial Price

US $

Final Price

US $

Price

Increase

US $

1.

Police Academic

Road

Laying & Grading Laterite

Sub-base, Crushed

Aggregate Base Course, RCP

Culverts 1500mm Dia, and

Cover of Reinforcement

concrete Ditch 617,868.00 916,252.00 298,384.00

2. S.K.D. Boulevard Roadbed preparation,

crushed aggregate base

course, prime coat, and

Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Culvert 1500mm Dia

1,191,040.00

1,624,300.00

433,260.00

Total 731,644.00

Risk

1.9.1.3 Failure by the MPW Management to use the actual Bill of Quantity in the signed contract

undermines accountability and could lead to misappropriation of found.

Recommendation

1.9.1.4 The Management of MPW should provide reasons why it failed to use the Bill of Quantity

contained in the signed contract for payment of contractual works.


1.9.1.5 Management did not respond to this observation.







1.9.1.6 Going forward, Management should ensure that in computing the final contract amount,

payments are based on the actual quantity of authorized work done in accordance with the

specification and drawing in line with Section 3.10 (a) of the MPW Standard Specifications

of Roads 2011.

1.10 Payment on Letter to Proceed without proof of Consultation with Justice

Minister

1.10.1.1 According to Section 8 (e), paragraph 1 & 2 of the Approved National Budget Law FY

2015/2016 under Policy Governing Targeted Appropriation, required ’’the Ministry of Public

Works to assess, validate, and cost all works completed under Letters to Proceed

arrangements to make recommendations for payment to the Minister of Finance &

Development Planning, who would proceed with payment after consultation with the

Minister of Justice.’’

1.10.1.2 It was observed during the audit that the Management of MPW made payments amounting

to US$10,387,216.02 under the Letter to proceed without evidence of consulting the

Minister of Justice of the Republic of Liberia in keeping with the National Budget Law of FY

2015/2016. See table 5.

Table 5: Letter to Proceed 2015/2016

S/N Date Documents

verified/Payee

Vouchers

No. Details/Description

Transaction

Amount

US $

1 2-Nov-15 SSF 000329 Emergency repair and

rehabilitation of AB Tolbert

road & Robert field highway

and continue on the AB Tolbert

road to weaver street onto the

Duport road. 1,500,000.00

2 6-Nov-15 CICO 000331 Payment for the Road done on

Caldwell to Louisiana Road . 2,166,470.80

3 4-Dec-15 Tristar 000351 Payment for second and third

payment for the supervision

services from Kolahun Junction

to Vahum to Bomarue in Lofa

County. 34,851.00

4 4-Dec-15 MDMC 000350 Part payment for the

rehabilitation work done on

Gbarnga-Ganta Highway. 178,574.00

5 24-Dec-15 Swaggs

Engineering

000375 Payment advance for culverts

installation on the Worhn to

Kollie Dedee Town in Margibi

County. 75,094.03






S/N Date Documents

verified/Payee

Vouchers


Transaction

Amount

US $

6 18-Feb-16 CHICO 000415 Payment for emergency repair

and rehabilitation of the

Samuel K. Doe boulevard in

payneville, Montserrado

County. 726,635.00

7 29-Mar-16 MDMC 000441 Payment for forty percent

(40%) completion of

rehabilitation 147km road from

Ganta Nimba County to Toe

Town 1,000,000.00

8 15-Apr-16 CICO 000456 Payment for start-up and

mobilization to pave the road

from Barnesvill Junction, kebah,

Diggsvilles to caldwell and New

Georgia road. 1,000,000.00

9 3-May-16 Swaggs

Engineering

000481 Payment for 60% completion of

rehabilitation of worhn-Kollie

Dede Town feeder road in

Margibi County. 75,094.03

10 3-May-16 West Africa

Construction

000483 Payment represent 13%

completion of the Asphalt

pavement of selected sinkor

street and avenues. 1,000,000.00

11 3-May-16 SSF 000484 Payment advance for 40% of

the contract price for work on

the corridor from the interection

of Robertfield highway and

Marshall in Margibi County. 768,085.30

12 17-May-16 Atlantic

Resource

Limited

000495 Payment for 60% completion

and contract value for the road

rehabilitation from Gbarnga to

Bortota road. 587,912.20

14 14-Jun-16 Westwood 000522 Payment for emergency fencing

and road diversion at the

ministerial complex in Congo

Town, Montserrado. 82,097.66

15 16-Jun-16 Westwood 000543 Payment for the rehabilitation of

the Gbarnga to Zorzor road

corridor. 201,275.00

13 30-Jun-16 CICO 000553 Payment for the road

rehabilitation from Barnesville

Junction, Kabah, Diggsville to

Caldwell in Montserrado County 800,000.00






S/N Date Documents

verified/Payee

Vouchers


Transaction

Amount

US $

16 30-Jun-16 CHICO 000574 Payment for 25% completion of

certificate for the Clara Town

road 191,127.00

Total 10,387,216.02

Risk

1.10.1.3 Making payments for works or services to contractors without adhering to the National

Budget Law of 2015/2016 and PFM Regulation P.10 (b) and PPC Act as regards to payment

and contract administration may result to significant financial loss, misapplication of public

funds, and unsuccessful contract performance.

1.10.1.4 Making payment for works or services without evidence that work was duly performed

before payment was made could lead to misapplication of public funds.

Recommendation

1.10.1.5 The MPW Management should provide explanation for making payment without providing

documentary evidence that works performed and duly certified.


1.10.1.6 The MPW’s Management implemented the works in accordance to Section 8 (f), Subsection

2 (a & b) of the Approved National Budget Law FY 2014/2015 under Policy Governing

Targeted Appropriation on Letters to Proceed arrangements and made recommendations

for payment to the Minister of Finance & Development Planning. Therefore, Ministry of

Public Works performed her duty as per the above mentioned Budget law.


1.10.1.7 The management’s assertion that the Ministry of Public Works performed the duty as per

the Budget Law FY 2015/2016 is not materially supported. The MPW Management did not

provide report of assessment, validation and recommendation during the audit as stated in

the Budget Law. Therefore, the MPW management is in breach of the Budget Law FY

2015/2016.

1.11 Change of Variation Orders without due process

Observation

1.11.1.1 Section 3.0 of the BOQs of both Gbarma to Weasua and Nimba Junction to Nyanfueh Town

Road Projects revealed that the requirement for the construction of various sizes of

drainage line by the contractor. Variation orders are issued where extra works significantly

affect the Contract Sum. These may involve omissions or additions to the Contract Sum

and may be approved by the Project Engineer within his authority as provided or Client in

the Conditions of Contract.






1.11.1.2 Similarly, section 42 (4) of the PPC Act of 2005, as amended and restated 2010, describes

that “Any price variation shall be subject to approval by the respective Procurement

Committee.”

1.11.1.3 It was observed during the field inspections of Gbarma to Weasua and Nimba Junction to

Nyanfueh Town Road Projects that there were changes in the construction of drainage lines

without following variation orders. This resulted in a decrease of US$211,600.00 of the

original contract sum.

1.11.1.4 Also, during the inspection exercise the approval of variation order by either project

engineer or Procurement Committee was not established. The following table 6 illustrates

the differences for a sample of sections. See Table 6 below.

Table 6: Change of Variation Orders without approval

S/N Contract/Project Descriptions Contractor

Price

Increase

US $

1.

Gbarma to Weasua

Unapproved variation orders for the

installation of various sizes of RCPs,

uninstalled 3 single cell RC Box Culverts,

and rehabilitation cost of non-existing

bridge

East International

Group Inc

126,800.00

2.

Nimba Junction to

Nyanfueh Town

Unapproved variation orders for the

installation of various sizes of RCPs,

Solid Rock

Investment Inc.

84,800.00

Total 211,600.00

1.12 Construction of Box Culvert

1.12.1.1 Additionally, the contract awarded to Solid Rock Investment Inc. for the road rehabilitation

of the Nimba Junction in Grand Bassa to Nyanfuah Town related to the Earth Work,

Construction of Drainage Line and Reinforced Concrete Culverts and Bridges for contract

amount of US$ 7,206,656.18. Section 3.0 of the BOQ indicates the lump sum payment of

US$320,000.00 for the construction of two (2) Reinforced Concrete (RC) Bridge (12m x

7.5m) each with guide rails.

1.12.1.2 However, during the field inspection exercise, it was noted that only a Double Cell Box

Culverts (7.4m x 8.6m) with rails was installed instead of 2 RC Bridge as per the BOQ

leading to a difference of US$ 206,860.80. There exists no evidence for approval of price

adjustment. See table 7 below for detail:






Table 7: Change Bridges to a Box Culvert without Evidence of Approval

S/N Description

of Works Location

BOQ Size

Length X

Width of

Bridge

Auditor

Inspection

Size

Length X

Width

Difference

in Size

Length X

Width

Rates

US$

Extra

Amount

US$

1 Double Cell

Reinforced

Concrete (RC)

Box Culvert

At 3km

From

Nimba

Junction

12m X

7.5m

=90m2

7.4m X 8.6m

=63.64m2

26.36m2/90m2

=0.29288

160,000.00 46,860.80

2 Uninstalled

Reinforced

Concrete (RC)

Bridge

- 1 - 1

160,000.00 160,000.00

Total 206,860.80

1.13 Change sizes of Bridges without Price Adjustment and approval

1.13.1.1 According to the same section of the contract, the BOQ required the contractor to construct

two (2) Reinforced Concrete Bridges (size Length-32m x Width-7.5m) each with guide rails

for lump sum amount of US$400,000.00 and US$380,000.00 respectively.

1.13.1.2 It was also observed during the field inspections that the installed 2 bridge were changed

in size without any price adjustment and approval provided. See Table 8 below.

Table 8: Change sizes of Bridges without approval

S/N Description

of Bridge Location

BOQ

Size

Length

X

Width

Auditor

Inspection

Size

Length X

Width

Difference in

Size

Length X

Width

Rates

US$

Extra

Amount

US$

1 Reinforced

Concrete

(RC)

At 3km

From

Nyanfueh

Towm

32m X

7.5m

=240m2

11.5m X

9.1m

=104.65m2

135.35m2/240m2

=0.56395833333

400,000.00

225,583.33

2 Reinforced

Concrete

(RC)

At 11km

From

Nyanfueh

Town

32m X

7.5m

=240m2

11.9m X

8.6m

=102.34m2

137.66m2/240m2

=0.57358333333

380,000.00

217,961.66

Total 443,544.99

Risk

1.13.1.3 Failure by the MPW Management to obtain the required approval for the adjustment of

contract price may lead to deviation of the scope of works and deny the achievement of

value for money.






Recommendation

1.13.1.4 MPW management should provide reason why it adjusted contract prices without obtaining

the requisite authorization.


1.13.1.5 1.11, 1.12 and 1.13: The above mentioned projects were executed in keeping with PPC Act

& Regulations and also the contract scope of works provided by the Ministry of Public

Works.


1.13.1.6 The Management’s assertion that the projects were executed as per requirement and the

contract scope of works provided by the Ministry of Public Works is not materially

supported. Any price variation should be subject to the approval by the respective

procurement committee. There is no documentary evidence of approval for price

adjustment made by the contractors, therefore, management is in breach of Section 42 (4)

of the PPC Act of 2005, as amended and restated 2010.

1.13.1.7 Also, it is recommended that upon further investigation the contractors and the

management of the MPW should be made to restitute the amount of overpayment in

contract value without evidence of approval.

1.14 Field Verification Findings

1.14.1 Rehabilitation of Brewerville-Bopolu road project

Road carriage way

1.14.1.1.1 Section 2.0 of the BOQ in the contract for the rehabilitation of the Brewerville to Bopolu

Road, the contractor was required to perform the earth works on the carriageway, the

roadway clearing, cutting down of hills, excavate unsuitable materials, grubbing and

shaping of the carriage way, expansion of road width from 7m to 10m, scarify existing road

gravel to minimum depth of 100mm, reshape and compact to specification, import suitable

approved materials, spread and compact in road embankment in layers, backfill with

approved imported materials around the drainage structures along the entire road.

1.14.1.1.2 During the field inspection exercise, we observed that most of the road achieved maximum

speed limit, but isolated spots were seen with critical sections, deep potholes or ruts,

gullies, and narrowing width with vegetation growth as shown in the pictures below. These

critical sections are graded but have not yet received laterite (proper gravel layer),

backfilling and compaction in keeping with AASHTO and ASTM Standard as adopted by the

Ministry. See photo below:






GAC Picture 1: Showing potholes on the carraige way of Brewerville-Bopolu Road

Risk

1.14.1.1.3 Failure to perform proper Earth works on the carriageway may lead to backfilling with

organic materials and poor road embankment which create deep ruts or potholes.

Recommendation

1.14.1.1.4 The MPW Management should ensure that the contractor adhere to the specification of the

BOQ as stated in the contracts.


1.14.1.1.5 Quality/Proper earth works were performed by the contractor as per specifications and

scope of works of the contract two or three years ago. However, the critical sections or

potholes and narrowing width with vegetation growth re-appeared due to wear and tear

of the road users without any routine maintenance before the visit by the GAC.

1.14.1.1.6 The road work was done in accordance to the contract scope of works provided by the

Ministry of Public Works. Management acknowledged the findings and recommendations.


1.14.1.1.7 We acknowledge Management’s assertion and the acceptance of our recommendation. We

look forward to its timely implementation. Management should ensure that a maintenance

plan is instituted by Government to avoid deterioration ot the roads therby resulting in

waste of meager Government resources. However, the contractor is in breach of the

contract.






Drainage

1.14.1.1.8 According to Section 8.10 of the MPW Standard Specification for Roads 2011, the contractor

is required to cover all works in connection with the excavation and construction of open

drains, subsoil drainage and banks dykes at the locations and to the sizes, shapes, grades

and dimensions as shown on the Drawings or as directed by engineer, and the test flushing

of the subsoil drains. The contractor is also required to cover the cleaning of open drains

and the repairing of subsoil drainage. In special circumstances this work may be executed

outside the road reserve. It also covers the clearing of existing culverts, backfilling of

prefabricated culverts, including amongst other the removal of all undesirable materials

that have accumulated in and around inlet and outlet structures in the barrel of the culverts.

1.14.1.1.9 According to the BOQ, the contractor was required to remove all damaged Reinforce

Concrete Pipe (RCP) and replace with 900mm RCP with head and wing walls, Excavate

existing corrugated metal pipes (CMP), steel, log, provide and install 0.9m diameter RCP

culverts with head and wing walls by 10m, and Provide material and build gabion protection

to structures.

1.14.1.1.10 During the field verification, we observed that culverts on Brewerville to Bopolu Road were

mostly silted with overgrowth of vegetation blocking the passage of water. Some culverts

were damaged and also had insufficient cover materials and falling head wall and wing

wall. We observed existing CMPs unmoved at several locations and Log Bridge on the

carriageway by the contractor as per Section 4.10 of the Technical Specification. See

photos below:

GAC Picture 2: showing damaged culvert head walls,wing walls and insufficient backfill material on Brewerville-Bopolu

Road.






GAC Picture 3: showing heavily silted culverts along the Brewerville to Bopolu Road

Risk

1.14.1.1.11 The failure of contractor to cover all necessary work as require could result to the blocking

of culvert and cause overflow of water on the carriage way.

1.14.1.1.12 The lack of culvert with headwall and wing wall could lead to erosion that could damage

culverts.

Recommendation

1.14.1.1.13 The Management of MPW should provide justification for not ensuring that contractor

comply with contract specifications, designs and drawings and the Ministry of Public Works

Standard Specifications for Roads 2011, regarding drainage constructions.


1.14.1.1.14 Management did not respond to this recommendation


1.14.1.1.15 The Management of MPW did not respond to the issue raised in our observation. In

reference to paragraph 1.4.9 of the previous audit on the same road, management

response states that “The contract is ongoing. The contractor received mobilization fees in

February 2015. All defects on the road will be corrected under the contract before final

completion certificate is issued by the Ministry.” The observations raised in the past audit

that were unresolved are as follows: the issue of removal of Corrugated Metal Pipes, CMPs)

and replace with RCPs, damaged culverts not replace, Log bridge and insufficient cover

materials and falling head wall and wing wall.






1.14.1.1.16 Therefore, we maintain our recommendation that the contractor did not comply with

contract specifications, designs and drawings and the Ministry of Public Works Standard

Specifications for Roads 2011, regarding drainage constructions,

1.14.2 Rehabilitation of 147Km Road from Ganta to Toe Town

Carriageway/Road Surface

1.14.2.1.1 According to Section 2.0 of the BOQ of Ganta to Toe Town Road Rehabilitation Project, the

contractor was required to perform the earth works on the carriageway, the roadway

clearing, cutting down of hills, excavate unsuitable materials, grubbing and shaping of the

carriage way, expansion of road width to 10m, scarify existing road gravel to minimum

depth of 1m, reshape and compact to 7% camber, import suitable approved materials,

spread and compact in road embankment in layers, backfill with approved imported

materials around the drainage structures along the entire road.

1.14.2.1.2 During the field inspection, we observed that most of Ganta (Nimba County) to Toe Town

(Grand Gedeh County) Road sections are difficult to achieve good riding. The carriage way

has heavily lost its camber to which the extent of gullies, potholes and ruts are significant

as shown in the pictures below. These critical sections have not received approved laterite

(proper gravel layer), backfilling and compaction to 7% camber in keeping with AASHTO

and ASTM Standard as adopted by the Ministry. See photos below:

GAC Picture 4: Showig Gullies, Potholes and Ruts on Ganta to Toe Town Road






GAC Picture 5: showing lost camber, rutting and severe potholes along the Ganta to Toe Town Road

Risk

1.14.2.1.3 Failure by the contractor to perform proper Earth works on the carriageway (backfill with

approved laterites, shape and compact to 7% camber) may create lost camber, severe ruts

or potholes and gully in the middle of the road.

Recommendation

1.14.2.1.4 The MPW Management should provide justification why the contractor did not adhere to

the specification of the BOQ.


1.14.2.1.5 Quality/Proper earth works were performed by the contractor as per specifications and

scope of works of the contract two or three years ago. However, the critical sections or

potholes and narrowing width with vegetation growth re-appeared due to wear and tear

of the road users without any routine maintenance before the visit by the GAC. The road

work was done in accordance to the contract scope of works provided by the Ministry of

Public Works. Management acknowledged the findings and recommendations.


1.14.2.1.6 We encourage the Management of MPW to consider the topography of Liberia’s landscape

(coastal lowlands, rolling hills, plateaus, low mountains, etc) and a very high precipitation

rainfall of 15.2 inches in a calendar year.

1.14.2.1.7 Additionally, the first and most basic thing to understand in road maintenance and

construction is proper shape of the cross section of the road (Gravel Road Maintenance

and Design Manual, 2000). The road surface must have enough crowns to drain water to

the shoulder but not excessive to impact roadway safety. Furthermore, the shoulder area






must not be higher than the edge of the traveled way on the road surface. Finally, a ditch

must be established and maintained to drain water away from the roadside. Culverts and

bridges at the right location and elevation are essential for the carrying of water under and

away from the road.

1.14.2.1.8 We acknowledge Management’s assertion and the acceptance of our findings. However,

we look forward to the MPW Management implementing the recommendation prescribed

above.

Drainage and Improper Backfill










1.14.2.1.10 According to the BOQ, the contractor was required to remove all damaged Reinforce

Concrete Pipe (RCP) and replace with 900mm RCP with head and wing walls, Excavate

existing corrugated metal pipes (CMP), steel, log, provide and install 0.9m diameter RCP

culverts with head and wing walls by 10m, and Provide material and build gabion protection

to structures.

1.14.2.1.11 During the field verification, we observed Sections of road from Ganta to Toe Town with

low spots requiring culverts that were not attended to. The installed culverts have not

managed to aid the free flow of water leading to ponding in some sections. Some culverts

had no head and wing walls while some were damaged at one end. Also at some location,

culverts had insufficient cover of approved materials and falling head wall and wing wall.

See photo below:

1.14.2.1.12 Additionally, we observed a damaged bridge after Loyee Town about 51km from Ganta

which was not backfilled and properly compacted as per Technical Specification of the

contract. It was noticed that the contractor was backfilling and making the approach road

at the bridge with improper material. See photo below:






GAC Picture 6: showing Damage Bridge on the road after Loyee Town on Ganta to Toe Town Road

Risk

1.14.2.1.13 Failure by the contractor to de-silt the entire culverts and install head and wing walls on

every installed culvert may cause erosion that could damage culverts.

1.14.2.1.14 Also, the failure of contractor to remove all unsuitable materials to an average of 1m,

backfill culverts or bridge with selected laterite, shape and compact to 7% camber may

lead to the free flow of water ponding in some sections or parts of the road.

Recommendation

1.14.2.1.15 The Management MPW should provide justification why the contractor did not comply with

Technical Specification, Design and Drawing as required within the contract to ensure the

proper backfilling and compaction of culverts to avoid erosion.


1.14.2.1.16 Management did not respond to this recommendation


1.14.2.1.17 Going forward, the MPW Management should ensure that the contractor comply with

technical specification, design and drawing as required within the contract.

1.15 Rehabilitation of the road from Gbarma to Weasua

Carriageway and Lack of Maintenance

1.15.1.1.1 According to the BOQ of Gbarma to Weasua Road Rehabilitation Project, the contractor

was required to perform the earth works on the carriageway, the roadway clearing, cutting

down of hills, excavate unsuitable materials, grubbing and shaping of the carriage way,

expansion of road width to 10m, scarify existing road gravel to minimum depth of 1m,






reshape and compact to 7% camber, import suitable approved materials, spread and

compact in road embankment in layers, backfill with approved imported materials around

the drainage structures along the entire road.

1.15.1.1.2 During the field inspection, we observed that most of the roads from Gbarma to Weasua

were impossible to achieve maximum driving speed. It was also observed that several

sections had varying widths (i.e. at 8km, road width is 8.6m) with some sections narrowing

solely due to vegetation overgrowth.

1.15.1.1.3 Additionally, some sections have been graded but not yet surfaced with approved laterite

(proper gravel layer), backfilled and compaction to 7% camber in keeping with AASHTO

and ASTM Standard as adopted by the Ministry while others have only been cleared but

not graded. It was also observed that some sections were with laterite containing stones

larger than the accepted size which had the appearance of large stones.

1.15.1.1.4 Despite the contract providing for maintenance during the entire project construction and

defects liability period, we observed during the field inspection exercise the presence of

vegetation overgrowth on the road carriage way and siltation of culverts among others.

See photo below:

GAC Picture 7: showing no maintenance after construction of road projects on Gbarma to Weasua






GAC Picture 8: showing reducing road width due to vegetation overgrowth and siltation in culverts on Gbarma

to Weasua Road

Risk

1.15.1.1.5 Failure of contractor to perform proper Earth works on the carriageway (backfill with

approved laterites, shape and compact to 7% camber) may create lost camber, severe ruts

or potholes and gully in the middle of the road. Pictures showing reducing road width due

to vegetation overgrowth and siltation in culverts on Gbarma to Weasua Road

Recommendation

1.15.1.1.6 The MPW Management should provide reasons why the contractor did not adhere to the

terms and condition of the contracts and specification of the BOQ.


1.15.1.1.7 Management acknowledged the findings and recommendations. The MPW’s Management

has already taken the steps by hiring consultants for quality road works as required.


1.15.1.1.8 We acknowledge Management’s acceptance of the recommendation and we look forward

to its timely implementation. Going forward, the MPW Management should ensure that the

contractor adheres to the terms and condition of the contracts and specification of the BOQ

Drainage and incomplete Bridge












outside the road reserve. It also covers the clearing of existing culvers, backfilling of



1.15.1.1.10 According to the BOQ, the contractor was required to remove all damaged RCP and replace

with 900mm RCP with head and wing walls, Excavate existing corrugated metal pipes

(CMP), steel, log, provide and install 0.9m diameter RCP culverts with head and wing walls

by 10m, and Provide material and build gabion protection to structures.

1.15.1.1.11 During the field verification, we observed that some low sections of Gbarma to Weasua

road in need of culverts were not attended to. Some culverts were not fully compacted and

backfilled whilst open to traffic. We also noted in some critical sections overflows of water

covering installed culverts. Some culverts had no head and wing walls while some were

damaged at one end. Also at some locations, culverts had insufficient cover of approved

materials and falling head wall and wing wall. Moreover, we observed CMP 60” at 49km

unmoved by the contractor as per Section 4.10 of the Technical Specification. See photos

below:






GAC Picture 9: Showing insufficient fill on different culvert locations on Gbarma to Weasua Road

1.15.1.1.12 Section 3.0 of the BOQ of Gbarma to Weasua Road Project required the contractor to

construct bridges in four (4) critical water cross-section of the road. The Audit Team noted

that these bridges are not yet completed by the contactor while in the six month of the

defect liability period. Some of the bridges lack approached slabs, proper backfilling and

proper compactions as required by technical specification of the contract. The guardrail

was not done as per specification, using material susceptible to vandalism. The contractor

was required to use similar guiderail described in MPW Technical Specification for Road.

See photos below:






GAC Picture 10: Showing incomplete bridges on different culvert locations Gbarma to Weasua Road

Existing Bridge for Maintenance and Rehabilitation

1.15.1.1.13 Furthermore, the BOQ required the contractor to maintain and rehabilitate three (3)

existing bridges on the Gbarma to Weasua Road Project. We observed during the field

inspection exercise two (2) of the exiting bridges were not maintained and rehabilitated

located at 45km and 54km respectively to Weasua. See photos below:






GAC Picture 11: Showing Damaged existing bridge for Rehabilitation at 45km and 54km on Gbarma to Weasua Road

Risk

1.15.1.1.14 Failure by the contractor to de-silt the entire culverts, install aprons, head and wing walls

and provide gabion protection on every installed culvert may cause erosion which could

damage culverts.

1.15.1.1.15 Also, the failure by the contractor to remove all unsuitable materials to an average of 1m,

backfill culverts or bridge with selected laterite, shape and compact to 7% camber may

lead to flow of water ponding in some sections or parts of the road.

Recommendation

1.15.1.1.16 The Management of MPW should ensure that the contractor complies with Technical

Specification, Design and Drawing as required within the contract to ensure the proper

installation, backfilling and compaction of culverts to avoid erosion. The MPW should also

ensure that it is effective and efficient in the administration of contracts.







Traffic signs and Billboards

1.15.1.1.19 According the BOQs, BILL No 1, the contractor was required to provide and install two (2)

subproject sign boards as directed by the engineer and traffic and safety signs along the

Gbarma to Weasua corridor.






1.15.1.1.20 Furthermore, during the field inspection exercise there were no billboards on the project

site as contractually required. Traffic sign and symbols were not placed on all active sites

and dangerous curves.

Risk

1.15.1.1.21 Failure to install traffic signs may create un-safety along the road corridor.

Recommendation

1.15.1.1.22 The Management of MPW should provide reasons why the contractor did not adhere to all

the provisions regarding billboards, sign and symbols installation.






to its timely implementation. Going forward, the MPW Management should ensure that the

contractor adheres to all contract provisions regarding billboards, sign and symbols

installation.

1.16 Rehabilitation of the Road Project from Nimba Junction to Nyanfueh Town

Carriageway

1.16.1.1.1 Section 3, of the BOQ on the Nimba Junction to Nyanfueh Town road project, required the

contractor to perform the Earth Works on the carriageway as follows: Backfilling and

compaction of all critical sections along road length with selected laterite; grading and

reshaping of entire length creating ditching and camber; compaction of materials along the

entire road.

1.16.1.1.2 During the inspection exercise, we observed that most of the roads from Nimba Junction

to Nyanfueh Town did not achieve maximum speed limit, isolated spots have critical

sections, deep potholes or ruts, gullies, and narrowing width with vegetation growth as

shown in the pictures below. These critical sections are graded but have not yet received

laterite (proper gravel layer), backfilling and compaction in keeping with AASHTO and ASTM

Standard as adopted by the Ministry. See photos below:






GAC Picture 12: Showing lost camber, rutting and severe potholes along the Nimba Junction to Nyanfueh Town

Road

Risk

1.16.1.1.3 Failure by the contractor to perform proper Earth works on the carriageway (backfill with

approved laterites, shape and compact to 7% camber) may create poor road embankment,

lost camber, severe ruts or potholes and gully in the middle of the road.

1.16.1.1.4 The failure of removing organic materials such as vegetation, roots, swamps, and peat may

create gullies in the middle of the road.

Recommendations

1.16.1.1.5 The MPW Management should give reasons why the contractor did not adhere to the

specification of the BOQ.







1.16.1.1.6 The contract was completed accordance to the project scope of work issued by the Ministry

of Public Works. The road has deteriorated due to wear and tear of the road user without

any routine maintenance. Management acknowledged the findings and recommendations.


1.16.1.1.7 We acknowledge Management’s assertion and the acceptance of our recommendation. We

look forward to its timely implementation.

Drainage










1.16.1.1.9 According to the BOQ, the contractor was required to remove all damaged RCP and replace

with various sizes such as 600mm, 900mm, 1200mm and 1500mm RCP with aprons,

headwalls and wing walls, Excavate existing corrugated metal pipes (CMP), steel, log,

provide and install RCP culverts with head and wing walls by 10m, and Provide approved

material and build gabion protection to structures.

1.16.1.1.10 During the field verification, we observed Sections of the road from Nimba Junction to

Nyanueh Town with low spots requiring culverts that were not attended to. The installed

culverts have not managed to aid the free flow of water in some sections of the road.

1.16.1.1.11 Some culverts had no head and wing walls while some were damaged or depressed at one

end. Also at some location, culverts had insufficient compaction of approved materials and

falling head wall and wing wall. We also observed the lack of gabion protection on many

installed culverts that resulted to erosions. See photos below:






GAC Picture 13: Showing damaged culvert head walls, wing walls and insufficient backfill material on Nimba

Junction to Nyanfueh Town Road

Risk

1.16.1.1.12 Failure by the contractor to de-silt the entire culverts and install head and wing walls may

cause erosion to the culverts.

1.16.1.1.13 Furthermore, the failure by the contractor to remove all unsuitable materials to an average

of 1m, backfill culverts or bridge with selected laterite, shape and compact to 7% camber

may lead to flow of water ponding in some sections or parts of the road.

Recommendation

1.16.1.1.14 The Management of MPW should state reasons why the contractor did not comply with

Technical Specification, Design and Drawing as required within the contract to ensure the






proper backfilling and compaction of culverts to avoid erosions. MPW should ensure that

the supervision team is effective and efficient in the administration of contract.


1.16.1.1.15 The contract was completed accordance to the project scope of work issued by the Ministry

of Public Works. The road has deteriorated due to wear and tear of the road user without

any routine maintenance. Management acknowledged the findings and recommendations.


1.16.1.1.16 We acknowledge Management’s acceptance of our recommendation. We look forward to

its timely implementation. However, the damages observed are material for “wear and

tear” to be to be the principle cause. Going forward, the MPW Management should ensure

that contracts are executed based on the standards and technical specifications.

1.17 Rehabilitation of Marshall Road

Road carriage way

1.17.1.1.1 According to the BOQ for Marshall Road Construction, the contractor is required for the

construction of asphaltic concrete on this project, to perform earth works on the

carriageway, the roadway clearing, excavate and dispose unsuitable materials, grubbing

and shaping of the carriage way, filling to embankment, haulage of concrete aggregates,

landscaping, stone pitching, and paving of road, construct median, concrete works, LAY-

BYS, walkway/shoulders, scarify existing road gravel to minimum depth of 100mm, reshape

and compact to specification, import suitable approved materials, spread and compact in

road embankment in layers, backfill with approved materials around the drainage

structures along the entire road.

1.17.1.1.2 Approximately 88.37% of the road is graded but have not yet received Asphalt pavement

in keeping with BOQ, Specification, design, AASHTO and ASTM Standard as adopted by the

Ministry. We also observed the presence of vegetation overgrowth on the culverts among

others. See photo below:






GAC Picture 14:Showing asphalt pavement, vegetation on the culverts on Marshall Road

Risk

1.17.1.1.3 Failure to properly perform Earth works of asphalt pavement on the carriageway could lead

to deep ruts or potholes.

Recommendation

1.17.1.1.4 The MPW Management should provide justifications why the contractor did not ensure

asphaltic works adhere to the specification of the BOQ as per requirements.


1.17.1.1.5 Management acknowledged the findings and recommendations.














2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

2.1 We acknowledge the cooperation and assistance provided to the GAC Audit Team by the

Management and staff of the Ministry of Public Works during the audit. The efforts and

commitment of the GAC staff in conducting this audit are also gratefully acknowledged.

Monrovia, Liberia

February 2020