Road works carried out without council's approval
The National Audit Office has found that road surfacing works performed for Zebbug council were carried out without the approval of the council being sought, although they were covered by the necessary permits. According to a report tabled in...
The National Audit Office has found that road surfacing works performed for Zebbug council were carried out without the approval of the council being sought, although they were covered by the necessary permits.
According to a report tabled in parliament yesterday by Home Affairs Minister Tonio Borg, it was also found that:
¤ the bills of quantities submitted with the tender called bidders to quote rates without, however, indicating quantities;
¤ the construction of water culverts that resulted in expenditure in excess of allowed variations was not included in the call for tenders;
¤ minutes of council meetings did not register any debate or decision regarding the culverts; and
¤ although the works that were carried out conformed to the standards of the trade, the proper functioning of the system would have to be run after the second phase of the project was completed.
The report recommended that accurate estimates be drawn up for each and every project undertaken and that tenders be drawn up according to financial regulations.
The report also proposed that variances that arose should be discussed and corrective action decided upon in time to ensure that financial accountability was practiced.
The auditor's report said that in this case, Zebbug council had to ensure that storm water was not allowed into the system before it could be ascertained that it was functioning according to commissioned reports.
In another investigation in connection with the construction of a retaining wall in Archpriest Frangisk Saver Cassar Street in Nadur, the audit office said that although there was no case of fraud or misappropriation of public funds, there were various shortcomings of which the lack of project management and financial control were the most serious.
In the project there was considerable discrepancy between the approved sum and the amount finally paid. There was a declaration by the architect that variations incurred could not have been predicted.