2008 Fiduciary Week Procurement Post-Reviews How to increase impact Irina Luca AFTPC

1. 2008 Fiduciary Week Procurement Post-ReviewsHow to increase impactIrina LucaAFTPC (March 26, 2008)

2. Agenda • General information • PPRs & IPRs in Africa • Results from PPRs & IPRs • How can we increase impact

3. 1. PPRs in the Bank * Not including projects with 100% prior review and projects with insufficient # of contractsfor post-review

4. 2a. PPRs/IPRs • Who is responsible • Who conducts PPRs: (a) • How • Who finances (a) Non PAS and consultants- cleared by the RPM for procurement post reviews

5. Risk Profiling Project Implementation 2b. ..FOCUSING ON RISKS Personnel $ System Activities

6. 2c. PPRs and IPRs in Africa (continued) Assessment: • Systems • Processes/transactions • Contract administration • Physical controls • Risk update • Action plan • Follow up

7. 2d. Funding Involved in Proc. Audits(continued) • Amounts involved in audits carried out for Project Agencies or for Regulatory Bodies are much larger than AFTPC Budget • Is there scope for scaling up these audits and maintaining the standards?

8. 3a. Results from PPRs • Generic similar issues as below: • Incomplete record keeping • Poor quality of bidding documents • Inconsistency between evaluation criteria / eval. reports • Lack of publication of contract awards • Improper treatment of complaints • Inconsistency of procedures for shopping • Poor contract management/payment dlys • Indicators of collusions

9. 3b. PPR/IPRs Objectives • Ascertain if funds used for the purposes intended • Capacity Building tool • Are they met?

10. 3c. Identification of Misprocurement in Africa • IPR: 112 contracts for a total of $ 2.5 m • PR: 12 contracts for a total of $ 29.9 m • PPR: 5 contracts for a total of $ 0.1 m • Complaints: 1 contract for a total of $ 0.9 m PR: Prior Reviews COMPL: Means Complaints by bidders Identification in FY06 and FY07

11. 3d. Conclusion: Results from “traditional” PPRs • Few cases of Misprocurement + small amounts involved ($ 5-15K each) • Capacity Development limited to the PIU • Resources are not always available for follow up • Not adequate for the increased decentralized projects • COI? • Not always seen as capacity building – punitive. How can we enhance the impact of post reviews?

12. 4a. How can we enhance impact of post reviews reviews? • Being more effective • Making better use of resources • Avoiding duplication of efforts

13. 4 b. Importance of prevention • Better project design, identification of risks, procurement arrangements • Assess subprojects at the appraisal time • Social accountability mechanisms • Decentralized/Centralized procurement • Internal controls: government owned control systems • Empower Clients to check for indicators of F&C • Appropriate post review models

14. 4c. Scenarios – pros and cons

15. 4d. Recommendations • Strategic approach by teams: • Emphasize prevention/solid project preparation/capacity building/ project supervision/ • Strategic planning – risk based • Empower Government – in charge (including identify F&C flags) • Rethink oversight model by the Bank: mix IPR/PPR/project financed audit (decentralized) – one size does not fit all.

16. 4e Recommendations (cont) • High quality TORs, consultants/auditors conducting post reviews • Focus on both systems and transactions • When warranted, integrated FM audit, F&C, asset verification • Samples size sufficient to identify systemic issues • Follow up on action plans Use PPR/IPRs feed back to improve (future) project designs and capacity building • Build capacity of national auditors and of the national private auditors and national auditor general/Proc. Regulatory Agency: (e.g. UGANDA, Poland, Indonesia)

17. DISCUSSION How can we increase the impact of PPRs/procurement audits? What is your experience? THANKS!