Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
ExDRA
May 2006
Internal Audit Report
Contents
1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 1
2 Background ............................................................................................................................. 1
3 Scope and Objectives............................................................................................................. 1
4 Audit Approach ....................................................................................................................... 1
5 Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 2
6 Acknowledgement .................................................................................................................. 2
7 High priority recommendations............................................................................................. 3
Appendix A – Detailed summary of audit findings ...................................................................... 7
Appendix B – Key risks addressed ............................................................................................. 15
Appendix C – Priority Ratings ..................................................................................................... 16
We have prepared this report solely for the use of management. We believe that it would
not be appropriate for it, or extracts from it, to be made available to third parties. If such a
third party were to obtain a copy, in whole or in part, without our prior consent, we would not
accept any responsibility for any reliance that they might place upon it.
1 Executive Summary
At the request of the National Audit Office an audit has been performed on the
adequacy of the project documentation in place for the Walton Hall Barns Feasibility
Study.
A number of serious concerns have been noted, eleven in total, on the failure of
project management procedures from the initial application phase through to the
payment of the final claim.
A high priority recommendation has been raised in relation to the deficiencies noted
in the adherence to the stated project management procedures these are noted in
detail in appendix A.
2 Background
For each audit we identify and critically evaluate the controls in place and highlight
in our report those potential weaknesses that become apparent as a result of our
work. We obtain comments from appropriate staff for each weakness identified and
ask management to provide action plans that detail the likely timescale for
implementation of our recommendations.
The audit of Walton Hall Barns Feasibility Study was undertaken during March
2006.
4 Audit Approach
Our approach was to:
1
• Determine whether the system is effective through testing, where
appropriate, that the controls are operating in practice, and if not establish
the likely impact of the weakness in control.
In carrying out this audit work standard quality assurance procedures have been
applied to ensure compliance with Government Internal Audit Standards (GIAS).
5 Conclusion
In our opinion, on the basis of the work that we have performed, we consider that
the arrangements in place at ExDRA are inadequate to meet the requirements of
EEDA’s delegated authority. Our review has identified a number of deficiencies in
the adherence to the stated project management procedures that management will
need to address in order to strengthen the control environment of the Agency.
Refer to section seven of the report for the high priority recommendation.
6 Acknowledgement
We wish to thank the ExDRA staff for their co-operation during this review, and in
particular Martin Woodrow.
2
Internal Audit Report
3
Internal Audit Report
Ref Issue/Risk Recommendations Management Response/Action
Plan
e-mailed the applicant’s completed Initial
Application Form to an independent panel
for appraisal.
4
Internal Audit Report
Ref Issue/Risk Recommendations Management Response/Action
Plan
that additional management scrutiny
should have been applied. At this very
busy time of the year (and particularly so
since ExDRA was in its first 6 months of
operation) too much latitude was given to
CERA, working with EEDA’s Rural
Executive, to run with this project and to
ensure that the stated project
management procedures were being
complied with.
5
Internal Audit Report
Ref Issue/Risk Recommendations Management Response/Action
Plan
that will ensure that the Company
becomes (and remains) fully compliant
with general legislation, published
codes of conduct and the specific
requirements of all funding bodies and
partner organisations.
In particular, we are fully committed to
reviewing the levels of accountability
and delegated authority within the
Company by the end of July 2006.
6
Internal Audit Report
Appendix A – Detailed summary of audit findings
Ref Audit Observation Management Comment
1 There is no evidence that the financial information contained within the It is acknowledged that this has not been evidenced by
application form has been checked. CERA’s Appraising Officer on the Initial Application Form.
However, her Strategic Appraisal Report does include a
value for money assessment and the percentage of match
funding has been calculated.
TRAINING NEED
2 The Appraisal sections of the Initial Application Form has not been It is acknowledged that the following three appraisal sections
completed. However, there is a copy of a Strategic Appraisal Report on file in the Initial Application Form, namely State Aid, Option
completed by the Appraising Officer which addresses:
Assessment and Risk Assessment, have not been
addressed in the CERA Appraising Officer’s Strategic
• Project description;
Appraisal Report.
• Strategic Fit;
• Equality and Diversity; TRAINING NEED
• Value for Money;
• Comment; and
• Recommendation.
However, the following appraisal sections from the Initial Application Form
have not been addressed:
• State Aid;
• Option Assessment;
• Risk Assessment.
3 There is no evidence on file of background checks having been made on the It would appear that CERA placed undue reliance on EEDA’s
applicant. Rural Executive’s knowledge of the applicant thereby
obviating the need for independent background checks. It is
acknowledged that this was an oversight.
TRAINING NEED
7
Internal Audit Report
4 A Review Group panel member states in his e-mail approving the project that It is acknowledged that the Review Group panel member’s
“I accept your recommendation and will support it as it is a feasibility study comments were not adequately addressed by CERA’s
but could we have some more clarification on the project management costs.
Appraising Officer.
These do seem very high.” 1
TRAINING NEED
The project management costs are not subsequently clarified with the
applicant, nor is it checked with the approval panel whether they wish to
continue with the approval of the project before project management costs
are clarified.
There is no clarification from the project on file, only an e-mail from EEDA’s
Rural Executive, sent after the offer letter was sent to the applicants, which
states “The costs do seem high at the moment – but it is not unusual for this
to be so as no other partners would be forthcoming at this early stage.” 2
5 The invoices provided to support the claim are not the original invoices. They It is acknowledged that the original invoices were not
would appear to be scanned in copies of invoices. provided at the time. However, with the exception of those
for the community consultation, the marketing survey and the
Defra bats license (see 7 below), the originals have now
been received and verified.
TRAINING NEED
6 It is not clear the amount that is being claimed/paid on invoice ref 1016; It is acknowledged that invoice ref 1016 is hand-written and
is only partially supported by supporting receipts.
TRAINING NEED
7 Estimated expenses were given on the Claim Form for the following invoices: It is acknowledged that there was a significant delay in
chasing up those invoices which were estimated on the claim
• Community Consultation (£4,700) form. This was in part at least due to the transfer in
1
E-mail dated 7 January 2005 entitled “Fw: ERRF Living Naze Bid”
2
E-mail dated 21 February 2005 entitled “RE: Living Naze Project”
8
Internal Audit Report
• Surveyors Fees – IJP Conservation Building (£3,525) administrative responsibilities from CERA to ExDRA as from
• Surveyors Fees – Dudley Smith (£840); 1st April 2005 and there being no dedicated officer in place at
• Marketing – EETB survey (£1,733); ExDRA until August 2005.
• Marketing – website and brochure (£4,113) (The total amount
TRAINING NEED
for this line is for £4,879, but includes three invoices which
total £766); and With regard to the invoices that are still outstanding it was
• Environmental – Defra bats licence (£1,500). understood at the time that the following pieces of work
couldn’t be carried out until after 31st March 2005:
There is no evidence on file that the organisations who had submitted 1. the community consultation – est. cost £4,700; and
estimates were contacted until receipt of an e-mail from the National Audit 2. the issuing of a Defra bats licence - est. cost £1,500
Office on 13 January 2006. The following invoices were received by ExDRA (the community consultation was carried out in October - the
on 18 January 2006: applicants are chasing the invoice - and the bats licence
• IJP Building Conservation ltd (£3,525); cannot be obtained until planning permission is granted).
• Dudley Smith Partnership (£705)
The project file will only be closed once these items of
• Silk Pearce (£4,026.72);
paperwork are received from the applicant (or, in the case of
• Chris Vine (£490)
the latter, we are advised that planning agreement has not
Invoices are therefore outstanding for the Community Consultation the EETB been granted by Tendring DC).
Survey, and the bats licence. The applicants now believe that they will not be invoiced for
the marketing survey carried out by the East of England
Tourist Board (estimated cost £1,733); it would appear that
the EETB has either overlooked or waived the recharge of
this to the applicant.
9
Internal Audit Report
8 The following terms and conditions have been attached to the payment of the It is acknowledged that evidence of progress towards
grant: planning permission was not provided to CERA prior to
payment. The applicants are of the view that it may take until
The balance of the grant will be paid “provided that the following documentary August 2006 before it is known whether or not planning
evidence is also supplied at the same time: permission has been granted by Tendring DC.
• Registration documents and constitution demonstrating the
creation of a not-for-profit organisation; It is further acknowledged that receipted invoices for
• Evidence of planning permission or progress towards planning
professional fees were not provided to CERA at that time.
permission;
• Receipted invoices for professional fees, to include timesheets However, they have now been received and verified.
for any in-kind contributions;
• A summary report demonstrating how biodiversity will be It is also acknowledged that registration documents
improved by this project including assurances that the project demonstrating the creation of a not-for-profit organisation
will not be detrimental to the environment; were not supplied to CERA at that time although draft
• Copies of all other reports and studies produced during this Memorandum and Articles of Association were provided.
phase.” The applicants have now advised that they are awaiting the
outcome of their planning application before they apply to
A copy of the feasibility study was submitted with the Claim Form and
Companies House for the not-for-profit organisation to be
contained:
incorporated.
• An update on the position in relation to planning permission 3 .
However there is no documentation in relation to the
It is acknowledged that enquiries should have been made by
submission to Tendring District Council for planning
permission. We understand from a conversation with the CERA’s Appraising Officer into all of these omissions. Either
planning officer at Tendring District Council that the revised the paperwork should have been obtained from by the
planning application is being heard in May 2006; applicant or the terms and conditions attaching to the
• Timesheets for DW Eagle and DW Rampling and copies of payment of the grant should have been varied.
invoices for professional fees. However, the invoices provided TRAINING NEED
to support the claim are not the original invoices or certificated
copies of the invoices received;
• Copies of the following reports and studies produced to
support the feasibility study:
3
Living Naze Feasibility Report, Section 2 Planning Permission, page 2
10
Internal Audit Report
o Living Naze, Transport Statement produced by
Intermodal Transportation;
o Memorandum and Articles of Association, drafted by
Birketts Solicitors;
o Barn Owl & Bat Survey, prepared by Chris Vine;
o Ecological Assessment of land adjacent to Walton Hall,
prepared by McKenna Environmental Limited;
o The Living Naze Visitor Centre Initial Feasibility Study,
produced by WWT Wetlands Advisory Service;
o Concept Script, produced by Derek Nice, Sarner
International and David Page;
o Building Control and Design, prepared by IJP Building
Conservation Ltd, Shore Engineering and the Carbon
Trust.
o Community Consultation Plan,
o Marketing Strategy, prepared by Doreen L Macintyre;
and
o East of England Tourist Board Survey;
9 There is a completion report on file. However, it is noted that: It is acknowledged that this was not picked up, primarily due
• There are a number of discrepancies between the Completion to the transfer in administrative responsibilities from CERA to
Report and the Initial Application Form and Claim Form as
ExDRA as from 1st April 2005 and, subsequently, there being
follows:
no dedicated officer in place at ExDRA until August 2005.
TRAINING NEED
Output Completion Report Initial Application
(“original forecast Form It is also acknowledged that the EEDA Activity leader’s
from offer letter”) comments are missing from the completion report. It was, at
Private sector 62,516 £108,123 the time, unclear whether these should have been added
11
Internal Audit Report
funding generated when the completion report was submitted or only once all
(£) the outstanding paperwork had been received. These
comments will now be added.
Output Completion Report Claim and TRAINING NEED
(“actual outputs Monitoring Form
achieved”) (“actual outputs
achieved by this
project to date”)
Private sector
funding generated £73,942 £127,500
(£)
There is evidence that the figures on the completion report have been
checked but section g – EEDA Activity leader’s comments has not been
completed.
10 It could be considered that not all of the expenditure on the project is It is acknowledged that the rationale for sight clearance costs
appropriate. The scope of the project was to produce a feasibility study which is unclear and that the sub-contracted work is not evidenced.
“will examine the potential for regeneration and provide a realistic, fully
costed and appraised project”. The following points are noted:
It is also acknowledged that the rationale for a detailed
• There is an invoice on file for JW & FD Eagle (P1014) for “site
Concept Script is unclear.
clearance at Walton Hall Barns on behalf of Living Naze:
It is acknowledged that all these costs should have been
scrutinised by CERA’s Appraising Officer and enquiries
In kind works Eagle and Rampling – 5 days 2,000.00
made as to their appropriateness.
N A Baxter subcontract work, cutting and
TRAINING NEED
Heavy duty moving equipment – 10 days 2,900.00
Total £4,900.00”
• There are two invoices for a total of £6,000 from David Page
for “six days scriptwriting, one day conference at New Holland”
(PL1006) and “Production of full provisional script for Living
13
Internal Audit Report
Naze as agreed.” (PL1024)
It is not clear why at the Feasibility Study stage of the project that a Concept
Script is necessary.
14
Internal Audit Report
15
Internal Audit Report
• Low Priority – Areas that have potential for improvement to comply with best
practice guidance or to strengthen the overall control environment by building upon
existing controls in place.
16