z What We Found
              Poor Governance                                                      Unsatisfactory 
              •                                Procurement Breaches                HR Practices
                 Infrequent Council            • Direct contracting 
                 meetings                                                          • Failure to 
              •                                  utilized instead of                 adhere to HR 
                 Inadequate                      competitive bidding
                 oversight by                                                        Policy.
                                               • Full value not received           • Inconsistent HR 
                 portfolio ministry              for contracts
              •  Transactions not                                                    Practices.
                                               • Onerous costs related             • Unapproved 
                 related to CMU’s                to contracts
                 core business                                                       emoluments.
                   Rationale: To ascertain whether CMU’s operational activities, 
             z
                 governance & monitoring framework were consistent with the 
                              principles of good financial management.
                                     Procurement & 
        Governance Practices            Contracts 
             & Oversight              Management
                                     Human Resource 
         Accounting Practices     Management Practices
                       z     Governance Practices and Oversight
          Oversight Deficiencies by Council                      Oversight weaknesses by Portfolio Ministry
          •                                                      •  The Portfolio Ministry failed to request 
           No internal auditor engaged;                             copies of minutes from CMU Council 
          • Minutes of meetings of CMU Council were not             meetings;
           submitted to the Portfolio Ministry by the 
           Council in breach of the GOJ Accountability           •  No  independent audit of CMU by Portfolio 
           Framework for Senior Officers;                           Ministries.
          • Annual and half yearly reports were not 
           faithfully submitted by CMU to respective 
           Permanent Secretaries.
                                                        
            z    Procurement and Contracts Management
                 Lunch Suppliers
                 • Total of $46.7M paid to 15 lunch suppliers over a 12 month period under the 
                  Technology Advancement Programme (TAP) and Career Advancement Youth 
                  Employment Solution (CAPYES) programmes.
                 • 9 of the 15 lunch providers exceeded the allowable threshold of $1.5M for direct 
                  contracting, based on GoJ Procurement Guidelines.
                 Computer Equipment
                 • $10.6 million paid to a supplier for computer equipment and other peripheral items 
                  without a formal contract or provision of warranty.
                 • No evidence of the fixed assets in CMU’s inventory records; assets could not be 
                  identified by the AuGD.
                 Project Management 
                 • CMU incurred demurrage charges of $33M related to purchase of sandwich panels, 
                  as CMU failed to return the shipping line’s containers as scheduled. 
                 • The building project remains at foundation stage after approximately two years.
                      z                               Construction of Block “E”
              CMU took a decision to construct a new student block at an 
            estimated cost of $701.8M without adequate source of funding.
           CMU provided no evidence         Logistic Company 1 was      Logistic Company 1 attached 
           that the Council considered    selected as the supplier  of     the quotes of the other 
            the feasibility of the project   the sandwich panels,        bidders with its submissions 
              or that given the cost,         although it was non-          although we found no 
            sought Cabinet’s approval.   responsive, having submitted       evidence that the four 
           CMU was unable to indicate      its bid after the deadline.   bidders authorized Logistic 
              the basis on which five     Further, the company  was       Company 1 to submit the 
              companies were pre-          incorporated in February          bids on their behalf. 
              selected to supply the      2018, the same month that 
            sandwich panels for use in      CMU invited bids for the 
                 the construction.         procurement opportunity.