Parallel audit of the use of public funds for motorway construction

Report ID: 65

The European motorway network forms the backbone of the passenger and freight transport in the European Union. As this situation will remain unchanged for the time being, investments in the expansion and maintenance of the European Motorway network are very important. Thus, examining the use of public funds for financing motorway construction projects is a key responsibility of Supreme Audit Institutions.

This report informs about the findings produced by the parallel audit missions regarding the funds spent on building the A 73 motorway (A 73) in Germany (section Thuringia/Bavaria satate border - Lichten - fels) and the D 1 motorway (D 1) in the Slovak Republic (section Vrtizer - Hricovske Podhradie). The audit missions focused on the public procurement procedure and a comparison of building standards and costs relative to the A 73 and the D 1. In the years 2009 to 2011, the audits were performed by the German SAI and the Slovak SAI in their respective country in order to share their findings and make comparisons.

The parallel audits found that by awarding the public works contract concerning the D 1 to a general contractor, competition was restricted placing small and medium sized enterprises at a disadvantage.

The expenses on building the two motorways increased considerably owing to the general increase in construction costs, the hike in value added tax (VAT) and, above all, the inadequate preparatory works performed by the respective national road works administrations. The two administrations did not or not adequately invite tenders for required work and services, with the result that supplementary agreements had to be subsequently concluded. Since the costs stipulated in these agreements were fixed in an environment with reduced or even no competition the contractors were able to enforce higher prices.

The Government Successfully Borrows in the Domestic Market: How to Optimize this Process and to Reduce Debt Management Costs

Report ID: 118

The National Audit Office of Lithuania carried out an audit of the management of the debt on behalf of the State, during which the efficiency of the management of Government securities (hereinafter – GS) issued in the domestic market was assessed. The audit covered the period between 2006-2009; in some cases data of 2010 was also used for comparison. The Government borrows in the domestic market through issuance of bonds – GS with maturity of over one year , with maturity of 3, 5, 7 and 10 years, and Treasury bills – GS with maturity of under one year, with maturity of 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months.

Domestic GS comprise about 30 per cent of the debt on behalf of the State. Until the end of 2008, GS were issued in the domestic market only through auctions. Until February 2009, in the domestic market of Lithuania GS auctions were organized by the Bank of Lithuania, later on – AB NASDAQ OMX Vilnius. In 2008 with the start of economic crisis, the Government started to issue GS in the domestic market not only through auctions, but also through private placements concluding a contract with creditors, as well as resumed the issuance of savings bonds. The Ministry of Finance successfully borrows in the domestic market: organization of GS auctions conforms to recommendations of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, as well as best foreign practice. During the audit no substantial problems related to the borrowing and debt management of the Ministry of Finance were detected; issues indicated in the report and recommendations given would allow to improve the efficiency of the GS management: i.e., to develop the domestic market, increase the demand of GS, which in the long run would help to reduce the debt management costs. The Medium-Term Debt Management Strategy of the Government does not provide for the objective to develop and maintain the efficient domestic market; no analysis was conducted as to what is the maximum possibility to borrow in the domestic market. Establishment of the above mentioned objective and clear means to implement it would allow increasing the demand of GS issued in the domestic market, independence from foreign market and reduce the debt management costs in the future.

GS auctions in the domestic market are insufficiently regular and predictable. In 2nd half of 2006 – 2009 the Ministry of Finance systematically cancelled previously announced auctions, which had a negative impact on auction participants and investors. Such a practice raises the distrust in auction organizers, hampers the market development, and increases the debt management costs in the long–run. The Ministry of Finance does not announce the amount of the issued GS; issuing GS in the domestic market, did not always follow the established borrowing programmes and calendars. Appropriate planning of the borrowing need, announcement of the information about how regularly Treasury bills and bonds will be issued and about the planned amount of the GS issue would enable to attract more investors and develop the domestic market, as well as ensure the transparency of the Government plans. The Ministry of Finance does not use auction evaluation indicators, which show the interest of investors in Government securities with various maturities. Use of Bit-to-Cover or other evaluation indicators showing the interest of investors in auctions would allow attracting more investors. The audit pointed out that issuance and maturity dates of GS were not always closely linked to the need for public cash on respective days. The Ministry of Finance should ensure the balance between the regular nature of borrowing and need for public cash: it would enable to optimize the planning of borrowing and help to reduce the costs of interests. In order to eliminate the possible risk of settlement between auction participants, to ensure the proper understanding of information, stability and transparency, requirements to auction participants issued by the Ministry of Finance should set the minimum and maximum amount of GS, which has to / may be purchased by one auction participant / investor in one auction, as well as to set requirements for non-competitive bids. Seeking to attract the interest of possible new auction participants and potential investors, the Ministry of Finance should announce more information on its website related to the GS issuance process, carrying out of auctions; explain what information has to be submitted along with the bid for GS by auction participants, as well as particularities of various bids and advantages to individual groups of investors. We want to point out that issues set out in the report and the terminology used is technical, specific and in many cases meant only for experts.

Transregional Programme on Public Debt Management Audit

Report ID: 122

Objective: To enhance both professional staff development and organisational capacity of target SAIs in public debt management audit

Guide for Auditing Public Debt Management

The Guide aims to provide practical procedures to conduct audits on nine specific public debt management topics:

(1) Public debt legal framework,

(2) Organisational arrangement,

(3) Determination of public borrowing needs,

(4) Public debt management strategy,

(5) Borrowing activities,

(6) Public debt information systems,

(7) Debt servicing,

(8) Debt reporting, and

(9) Contingent liabilities, with emphasis on loan guarantees.

The nine topics were those discussed in the PDMA e-learning course, and were selected as topics for pilot audits by 29 participating SAIs in the Programme.

The primary intended users of the Guide are staff in Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) with little or no knowledge of, or experience in public debt auditing.

SAI auditors who are completely new to public debt management auditing are advised to build their understanding of the subject of public debt prior to using this Guide. One option in this regard would be to study the IDI’s training materials on public debt management auditing.

Focusing more in the context of a performance audit, this Guide also provides audit guidance in the context of financial and compliance audit, particularly in the audit planning and reporting phase.

Costs of control

Report ID: 166

Background

In 2000, the Contact Committee of the heads of the SAIs of the EU Member States and the ECA (Contact Committee) set up a Working Group to carry out an exploratory survey on EU Structural Funds. A questionnaire was sent to the SAIs to gain an understanding of how these funds were controlled and managed by the various Member States and to identify possible risk areas. The Working Group reported its findings from this work to the Contact Committee in November 2002.

The Contact Committee subsequently approved three parallel audits. The first of these examined the application of the regulations to ensure that all Member States implement independent checks on 5 per cent of expenditure and had established appropriate audit trails to support transactions. The final report on the review was presented to the December 2004 Contact Committee.

The second parallel audit involved a review of the processes in place for identifying, reporting and following up on Irregularities. The final report on that review was presented to the December 2006 Contact Committee.

As third parallel audit the Working Group carried out a review focused on “Performance (output/effectiveness) of the Structural Funds programmes in the areas of employment and/or environment”. The final report on that review was presented to Contact Committee in December 2008.

Coordinated Audit of the Mercosur Free from Foot-and-Mouth Disease Action Program (PAMA)

Report ID: 281

In 2011, as part of the Action Plan of the Organisation of  Supreme Audit Institutions  of MERCOSUR and associated, the Supreme Audit Institutions of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Venezuela and Bolivia carried out a coordinated audit on the Mercosur Foot and Mouth Disease Free Action Programme - PAMA with the support of GIZ.

The objective of the coordinated audit was to analyse the contribution of PAMA to the fight against FMD, whether the resources used by the programme were being audited and whether adequate follow-up was being carried out, identifying, in both cases, aspects of improvement for the management of the programme.

The topic was chosen because of the socio-economic importance of livestock activity in the region and the risk of livestock contagion in the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) due to recurrent outbreaks of the disease in countries of the region. In addition, the audit of EFSUR in 2010 pointed out the opportunity to deepen the research on the controls of FOCEM projects, suggesting the audit of the PAMA, because it is a multi-state program, and the evidence detected on control deficiencies, considering also that due to the characteristics of dispersion of the disease, only an articulated and integrated effort of the countries could provide concrete contributions.

The coordinated audit was part of a pilot project to examine the capacity building methodology developed under the GIZ/Olacefs Programme.

Source: https://efsur.org/informes-de-auditoria/