Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

070425124727PH-PS 017 On the spot evaluation of IA and Phare Final Beneficiary by fanzhongqing

VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 16

									  CENTRAL                     SPECIFIC PROCEDURE                           Code: PH-PS 017
 FINANCE and              ON THE SPOT EVALUATION of                        Edition: D
CONTRACTING          IMPLEMENTING AUTHORITIES and PHARE                    Review:1
    UNIT                      FUNDS BENEFICIARY                            Page 1 of 16


                                    Document approval


                    Function            Name                   Date                Signature
Prepared by:   Evaluation
                                  Mirela Musoi             23.04.2007
               Officer
Checked by:    Deputy Director    Monica Truter
Approved by:   CFCU Director      Carmen Rosu

                            Evidence of document modifications

Edition/         Date               Section/page/paragraph modified             Comments
Revision
Ed.D/    23.04.2007              Modifications:                           The present specific
                                   - title of the procedure;              procedure is a revision
Rev.1
                                   - Aim;                                 of the procedure PH-
                                   - General principles and               PS 017
                                        references;                       (Methodological
                                   - Forms                                Guide for assessment
                                                                          of Implementing
                                                                          Authorities – PHARE
                                                                          and on the spot
                                                                          checks), Edition D,
                                                                          Rev. 0 / 01.06.2006, as
                                                                          necessity to include the
                                                                          EDIS requirements and
                                                                          CE audit
                                                                          recommentations.




PH-PS 017          Edition: D                  Review: 1                Page 1 of 16
    CENTRAL                        SPECIFIC PROCEDURE                                  Code: PH-PS 017
   FINANCE and                 ON THE SPOT EVALUATION of                               Edition: D
  CONTRACTING             IMPLEMENTING AUTHORITIES and PHARE                           Review:1
      UNIT                         FUNDS BENEFICIARY                                   Page 2 of 16




    1. Aim

The aim of on the spot missions performed at the Implementing Authorities (IA) is to verify and
evaluate their institutional and procedural capacity of effectively managing European funds in compliance with
the conditions provided for in the Financing Memoranda.

The Evaluation Plans rely on the provisions of Council Regulation No. 1266/1999 setting up the criteria for the
evaluation of the institutional capacity of all the entities managing European funds.

On the spot checkings is applied to the PHARE funds Final Beneficiary (FB) / IA as CFCU
responsibility, generated by the EDIS accreditation on the PHARE funds administration.


    2. Applicability

The present procedure applies to the assessment team set up within the CFCU and it must be observed
by all of the members of the team during on the spot check process.


    3. Definitions and abbreviations

EU – European Union
MEF – Ministry of Economy and Finances
CFCU – Central Finance and Contracting Unit
PAO – PHARE Authorising Officer
IA – Implementing Authority
SPO – Senior Programme Officer
FB – Final beneficiary



    4. Responsibility and authority

The responsibility for applying this procedure lies exclusively with the CFCU to members of
evaluation commission in the spot checkings at the IA/FB.

4.1 The Deputy Director responsible for the IA/FB assessment:

     Approves the planning and supervise the control activity;
     Appoints the Control team;
     Supervises the observance of the planning;
     Endorses the schedule of the control missions elaborated by the head of unit;
     Reprogramming of the controls, based in the risk assessment analyze or the alerts from other
      services;
     Supervises the monitoring of the recommendations made in previous missions;
     Ensures the overall co-ordination of the actions to eliminate the possible drawbacks;

 PH-PS 017               Edition: D                     Review: 1                 Page 2 of 16
    CENTRAL                      SPECIFIC PROCEDURE                             Code: PH-PS 017
   FINANCE and               ON THE SPOT EVALUATION of                          Edition: D
  CONTRACTING           IMPLEMENTING AUTHORITIES and PHARE                      Review:1
      UNIT                       FUNDS BENEFICIARY                              Page 3 of 16

    Approves the reports regarding the progress of control activities, the results and the reaction of
     the bodies review and submits to PAO for his/her approval;
    Approves the follow up action plans based on the proposal of the Head of Assessment of FB’s
     Unit;
    Based on the findings of on the spot mission makes proposal to PAO for supplementary
     controls.

4.2 The Head of Assessment of Final Beneficiaries Unit:

    Elaborates the schedule of the review missions based on the risk assessment analyze;
    Coordinates the planning of review missions activities;
    Coordinates the preparations of the control missions;
    Checks the on the spot report elaborated by the control team and submits it to the responsible
     Deputy Director for approval;
    Coordinates the monitoring of the recommendations included in the report and submits
     regularly reports to the responsible Deputy Director regarding the status of implementation of
     the recommendations;
    Proposes the follow up actions based on the risk assessment analyze and submits them to
       the responsible Deputy Director for approval .


4.3 The Control team:

    Provide necessary conditions for carrying out of the control by ensuring the secretariat;
    Prepares and sends for approval to PAO:
                - the assignment letters for each member of the control team,
                - information about the control of the different involved institutions,
    Collecting data on related dossier;
    Organises the control logistics:
                 - the reservation of meeting rooms, transportation, allowances, etc.,
                 - the multiplication of the documents,
    The control preparation, by studying the reference documentation, the findings of the previous
     controls;
    Carrying out of the control and filling in the checklists;
    Checking of the corrective measures and their efficiency;
    Drawing up reports for each of the checked project.


   5. General principles and referentials

As a consequence of receiving the EDIS accreditation on PHARE ,CFCU has the right to perform on
the spot checks to the PHARE AIu/FB.

- The criteria which must be applied by the evaluation commission set up within the CFCU for the
evaluation of the Implementing Units’ capacity, organized at the Final Beneficiaries’ level, are the
following:



 PH-PS 017            Edition: D                   Review: 1                Page 3 of 16
    CENTRAL                       SPECIFIC PROCEDURE                              Code: PH-PS 017
   FINANCE and                ON THE SPOT EVALUATION of                           Edition: D
  CONTRACTING            IMPLEMENTING AUTHORITIES and PHARE                       Review:1
      UNIT                        FUNDS BENEFICIARY                               Page 4 of 16

       i) there should be a well-defined system for managing the funds , within an institutional
          framework with well-known implemented internal rules and procedures, with clear
          personal responsibilities;
       j) the principle of segregation of duties is respected so that there should be no risk of conflict
          of interest between procurement and payment;
       k) adequate personnel must be available and assigned to the task. They must have suitable
          auditing skills and experience, foreign languages skills and be fully trained in implementing
          Community programmes.

In the process of applying the procedure the principle of using standard framework and forms is
respected, as well as maintaining registrations, according to the internal procedures and the laws
regulations

The documents are archived by applying the internal procedure PG 005 – archiving the CFCU
documents.

   6. Work procedure

On the spot checks missions:

6.1 Scheduling on the spot checks missions;
6.2 Preparing and organizing the missions;
6.3 On-site visit: assessment of Implementing Authorities;
6.4 Reporting;
6.5 Follow-up phase.

6.1 Scheduling on the spot checks missions

On the spot checks missions are scheduled at the beginning of the year based on the risk assessment of
the Implementing Authorities and are completed progressively according to the IA set up during that
year.
After the signature of the Financing Memorandum, the CFCU transmits to the SPO an “Institutional
and Procedural Questionnaire” (Annex 1) with a view to the drawing up of a preliminary evaluation
report regarding the institutional capacity of the IA. The questionnaire will be filled in by the SPO and
will be transmitted to the CFCU. The filled-in questionnaires are the basis for drawing up an Action
Plan which is further submitted to the PAO.
The Assessment of FB Unit draws up a schedule of the evaluation missions which has to be endorsed
by the Deputy Director and approved by the CFCU’s Director (Annex 2).
The review plan shall be based on an appropriate risk assessment of SPOs and could be modified
based on the updated risk assessment or based on the alerts received form the other departments within
CFCU or external authorised bodies. The risk based planning is performed in compliance with the
procedure PH-IS-PS 036 Risk Assessment of Final Beneficiaries.


6.1.1 The selection of the institutions/projects to be checked

Principle applicable to selection

 PH-PS 017             Edition: D                    Review: 1                Page 4 of 16
    CENTRAL                          SPECIFIC PROCEDURE                            Code: PH-PS 017
   FINANCE and                   ON THE SPOT EVALUATION of                         Edition: D
  CONTRACTING               IMPLEMENTING AUTHORITIES and PHARE                     Review:1
      UNIT                           FUNDS BENEFICIARY                             Page 5 of 16


The Deputy Director responsible for the assessment of FB submits for approval the control mission
schedule to the PAO.
Depending on the results of the periodical analysis of the services in charge with the implementation of
the operation, the frequency of the checks will be higher for the projects/sub-programmes/IA where the
previous checks revealed:

 -       Delays on the reports drawn up by the services in charge with the implementation of the
         operation;
 -       Superficial analysis of the drawbacks;
 -       The lack or not sufficiency of the corrective action;
 -       The increasing level of the non observance.

6.1.2 The project selection

The selection of the projects subject to the future checks, are based on the following:
     a) Previous risk assessment analyze

       b) Operation generically called “ motionless”(in the case of the works contracts)
     - Who had not started the works in a six months period after the approval of the measure?
     - The execution of which seems to be interrupted and were no progress have been recorded over a
     year. (there are the risk of not achievement the works within the eligible period)
     - Operation for which the financing plan have been considerably exceeded.

         c) The nature of beneficiary
     -     The structure of the beneficiary;
     -     When presents certain risks (some non-compliance have been revealed).

Responsibility: Assessment of FB Unit

6.2 Preparing and organizing the evaluation mission

The Assessment of FB Unit draws up check plan comprising all legal aspects relating to the objectives
of the evaluation mission, as well as to the distribution of tasks and the planning of the activities.

The Check Plan will contain each objective of the detailed thematic, concrete actions to be performed
on site. The evaluation plan must also contain a detailed presentation of the works to be performed by
the evaluation team, the studies, the quantifications, the tests, and their validity by comparing the
materials which had been presented and the periods when the respective works are to be performed.

In the Check Plan an engagement scope shall be established, that will sufficiently satisfy the objectives
of the review. The scope should consider all relevant systems, records, personnel, and physical
properties associated with the activity. The appropriate resource allocation shall be determined to
achieve the engagement objectives. Staffing should be based on an evaluation of the nature and
complexity of the engagement and time constraints.

If the nature of the review requires a background research should be performed. (Read and review
whatever information is available regarding the area to be audited.) Some examples are:

 PH-PS 017                 Edition: D                Review: 1                 Page 5 of 16
    CENTRAL                      SPECIFIC PROCEDURE                                 Code: PH-PS 017
   FINANCE and               ON THE SPOT EVALUATION of                              Edition: D
  CONTRACTING           IMPLEMENTING AUTHORITIES and PHARE                          Review:1
      UNIT                       FUNDS BENEFICIARY                                  Page 6 of 16


      Written policies and procedures for the area;
      Organization charts;
      Relevant regulations, decrees, laws, or guidelines. Make specific note of any changes since the
       last review;
      User manuals;
      Prior years’ and reviews’ working papers.

The head of the reviewed organization is responsible for the correctness and completeness of
information and documents represented to the engagement team. To assure this, (s)he has to sign the
Statement of representation.

The group leader is the head of Assessment of FB Unit, if the Deputy Director responsible for
Assessment of FB does not decide otherwise.

Prior to beginning each individual on the spot check, the group leader should:

    Obtain a letter of appointment , signed by the PAO. The letter must contain the following
     information and be presented to the head of the area being reviewed at the beginning of the
     checking:

          The title letter of appointment
          The name and position of the officials participating in the review;
          The objective of the review;
          Organizational units involved in the review;
          Timeframe for the review;
          Documentations required for the review;
          The date of issue;
          The signature of the PAO;
          The stamp of the CFCU.

                The letters regarding the organization of the evaluation missions are transmitted by
                 fax with the acknowledgement receipt as attachment, going to be filed and archived.

Responsibility: Assessment of FB Unit.

6.3 On-site visit:

6.3.1 Key Points:

   1) The engagement team should:

   2) Identify, analyze, evaluate and record sufficient information to achieve the engagement
      objectives and complete the work program.

   3) Base findings and conclusions on the results of analysis, evaluation and on sufficient, relevant
      and reliable evidences.


 PH-PS 017             Edition: D                   Review: 1                    Page 6 of 16
    CENTRAL                       SPECIFIC PROCEDURE                               Code: PH-PS 017
   FINANCE and                ON THE SPOT EVALUATION of                            Edition: D
  CONTRACTING            IMPLEMENTING AUTHORITIES and PHARE                        Review:1
      UNIT                        FUNDS BENEFICIARY                                Page 7 of 16

   4) Record relevant information to support the findings, conclusions, and engagement results.
      Access to engagement records should be restricted to prevent unauthorized access to
      confidential or sensitive information.

   5) Use the prior year’s work programs and working papers only as a guide. Be aware of issues
      and concerns that were not addressed in the prior review;

   6) Know the purpose of a work program before using;

   7) Review working papers after completing them to ensure that they clearly communicate its
      purpose and results;

   8) Be alert and inquisitive. Question anything unusual;

   9) Maintain an “open items” list that includes all things that cannot be completed at the current
      time or outstanding items that have been requested from the reviewed organization;

   10) Document how information was obtained. This will assist in future year’s reviews;

   11) Upon approval of the responsible Deputy Director, a review may be suspended if the
       continuation of the review is not possible (e.g. there is a lack of records and documents or other
       insufficiencies exist). In justified cases, reviews can be cut off for a maximum of 30 days. In
       such cases, the head of the area being reviewed and the PAO must be notified in writing.
       Additionally, the engagement leader must prepare a written record of the factors hindering the
       review and the individuals responsible for the factors.


A key to a successful process review is good communication. Good communications with the
reviewed organization’s personnel help ensure that:

          Information necessary to conduct the review is received in the requested form within the
           needed timeframe;
          The reviewed organization is informed of potential problem areas during the course of the
           review, so that corrective action may be initiated on a timely basis; and
          Recommendations are practical, efficient, and acceptable to management.

In communication with the reviewed organization the engagement team members should always:

          Be cooperative;
          Develop a professional relationship;
          Inform management of problems as they arise; and
          Discuss the facts of potential findings and exceptions prior to including them in the report.

During the course of a process review the engagement team is required to make the following
communications:

a) Pre-review Notification:


 PH-PS 017              Edition: D                   Review: 1                 Page 7 of 16
    CENTRAL                        SPECIFIC PROCEDURE                             Code: PH-PS 017
   FINANCE and                 ON THE SPOT EVALUATION of                          Edition: D
  CONTRACTING             IMPLEMENTING AUTHORITIES and PHARE                      Review:1
      UNIT                         FUNDS BENEFICIARY                              Page 8 of 16

  When                   If the nature of the review is such that it does not need to be performed on a
                          surprise basis, the reviewed organization should be informed in writing a
                          minimum of 24 hours prior to the start of the review.


  Who                    The communication is made from the PAO or from the responsible Deputy
                          Director to the Senior Management individual responsible for the area to be
                          reviewed.



b) Opening Meeting:

  When                   Generally happens on the morning of the first day of fieldwork.

  Who                    Engagement team leader (and members), manager responsible for the
                          reviewed area, and other responsible personnel from the reviewed
                          organization

  What                   Communicate the review objectives, scope, and procedures;
                         Request items that are needed to begin the review; and
                         Establish time line for the work to be performed at the reviewed
                          organization’s location.


c) Progress/Status Meeting (for longer engagements):

  When                   Performed periodically throughout the course of the review.

  Who                    Engagement team leader (and members), manager responsible for the
                          reviewed area, and other responsible personnel from the reviewed
                          organization

  What                   Used to update the reviewed organization on the progress of the review;
                         Opportunity to communicate any potential findings;
                         Allows the reviewed organization to clarify, explain, or address any
                          potential findings.




d) Closing Meeting:

  When                   Generally performed on the last day of the fieldwork.




 PH-PS 017            Edition: D                    Review: 1                 Page 8 of 16
    CENTRAL                          SPECIFIC PROCEDURE                            Code: PH-PS 017
   FINANCE and                   ON THE SPOT EVALUATION of                         Edition: D
  CONTRACTING               IMPLEMENTING AUTHORITIES and PHARE                     Review:1
      UNIT                           FUNDS BENEFICIARY                             Page 9 of 16

  Who                      Typically attended by the engagement team leader (and members), manager
                            responsible for the reviewed area, and other responsible personnel from the
                            reviewed organization.

  What                     Review of engagement objectives, scope, and procedures;
                           Communication of review findings. This includes findings that will be
                            included in the report (and those that will not); and
                           Communication of the date for the draft report to be issued.

6.3.2 The proper on site evaluation consists in correlating the documents, analysing and evaluating
them and is made of the following stages:

        1) Interviews with the staff whose activity is under evaluation: heads of IA, irregularities
            officers, the person responsible with the quality control (or similar), financial officer,
            accountant, the person responsible with the publicity;
        2) The official trips at the building sites will take place according to the terms laid down in the
            plan established by the Assessment of FB Unit and previously transmitted
        3) The verification of the institutional framework within which the IA performs its activity.
        4) The verification of the capacity of managing the human resources: programming, selection,
            induction, training, evaluation, fluctuation;
        5) The verification of the observance of the principle of segregation between the functions of
            execution and those of payments’ authorizing at the IA’s level, and between procurement
            and payments.
        6) The verification of the publicity component of the project.
        7) The verification of the capacity of treating the irregularities: identification, rectification,
            reporting.
        8) The evaluation of the function of internal audit: own preventive financial control and,
            financial and system audit.
        9) The verification of the existence of manual of procedures for all the operations performed
            at the IA’s level.
        10) The evaluation of the capacity of ensuring the security of the information by an IT
            procedure.
        11) The evaluation of the eligibility of expenditures made at the level of Implementing
            Authority and down to the level of each FB of the IAu according to the provisions of
            Financing Memorandum and all the implementing arrangements.
In the deployment of the previous stages the evaluation team uses the Annexes 3 and 4.

   According to the information received during discussions with the IAu/FB representatives, the
   evaluation team will go, together with a representative of the IAu/ FB on the building site for a
   visit and a discussion with the constructors’ representatives. First of all, there will be verified the
   compliance with the provisions of the contract, as well as the efficiency of their accomplishment.
   In case of delays, the evaluation team will notify it in the evaluation report.

   In case of an SPO process review, as minimum criteria the engagement team reviews the SPO’s
   system by documentary review of the PHARE Operational Manual with special emphasis to the
   internal controls designed and exercised on the preparation of technical specifications, tender
   dossiers, nomination of evaluation committee members and budgeting national co-financing
   sources. Following the internal control review the engagement team should check on an


 PH-PS 017              Edition: D                    Review: 1                Page 9 of 16
  CENTRAL                       SPECIFIC PROCEDURE                           Code: PH-PS 017
 FINANCE and                ON THE SPOT EVALUATION of                        Edition: D
CONTRACTING            IMPLEMENTING AUTHORITIES and PHARE                    Review:1
    UNIT                        FUNDS BENEFICIARY                            Page 10 of 16

  appropriate number of sample project, whether the internal controls are properly executed in the
  practice.

  The sample shall be selected to reach adequate confidence level, as a general rule over 15% with
  monetary unit sampling (in case of homogenous sampling population).

  It is essential for any review, that work papers are clear and concise and provide the necessary
  evidence for all conclusions reached. The primary purpose of the process review-work papers is to
  support the findings and opinions expressed in the review report. The work papers are the
  reviewer’s documentation of all work performed from the beginning until the end of the review.
  They clearly show the nature and extent of work performed, procedures followed, tests conducted,
  and conclusions reached. Additionally, work papers give assurance that an adequate review was
  performed because they document planning and supervision of the review.

  The engagement team members should develop and use work papers to help:

        Make assignments to team members;
        Coordinate work in different locations or areas;
        Document what has been done;
        Indicate what is still to be done;
        Give reasons for what will be left undone;
        Identify and document deficiencies by accumulating the evidence needed to determine the
         existence and extent of the deficient conditions;
        Provide support for discussions with the reviewed personnel;
        Provide a basis for supervisory review of the review’s progress and accomplishment. The
         work papers, as evidence of work done, are a much better index of accomplishment than
         unsupported oral discussions;
        Provide a guide, background, and reference data for subsequent reviews;
        Provide a basis for the engagement team members for evaluation; and
        Assist in the training of new staff.

  All work paper numbers should refer to the steps in the review’s work program. To accomplish
  this, the work programs should be numbered consecutively. For example, workprogram Step 1
  should reference work paper 1. If there are multiple work papers for one program step, the work
  papers should be numbered 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, and so forth.

  The following is a list of items frequently included as a work paper:

     a) an original document (or copy) developed or used by the reviewed organization in relation
        to the process or task under review;
     b) minutes from meetings held with reviewed organization’s personnel;
     c) written description of a process or a process flowchart of reviewed organization’s
        operations;
     d) description of test work performed by the engagement team, including test work results;
     e) copies of any laws, regulations, etc. which govern the area or process under review; and
     f) written policies and procedures used by the reviewed organization.



PH-PS 017             Edition: D                   Review: 1              Page 10 of 16
  CENTRAL                        SPECIFIC PROCEDURE                           Code: PH-PS 017
 FINANCE and                 ON THE SPOT EVALUATION of                        Edition: D
CONTRACTING             IMPLEMENTING AUTHORITIES and PHARE                    Review:1
    UNIT                         FUNDS BENEFICIARY                            Page 11 of 16

  Audit work programs call for the performance of many procedures and tests. Work papers should
  be structured to summarize key information related to the performance of each work program step.
  To accomplish this, each work paper should have the following standard sections:

      1.   Purpose
      2.   Procedures
      3.   Source
      4.   Sample (if, necessary)
      5.   Comments
      6.   Conclusion

      1. Purpose

              The statement of purpose addresses the reason why the work paper was prepared. The
              purpose should:
     Explain the objective of the test or review procedure being performed;
     Relate to the associated review program step referenced to the work paper;
     Support the conclusion reached on the work paper.

      2. Procedures

             The statement of procedures addresses how the work paper was completed. This
             information is important in supporting the conclusion reached and providing assistance
             to reviewer’s performing future work in the area. The procedures should:
     Explain the methodology used in obtaining evidence. For example:
                   - Interviewed personnel;
                   - Obtained and reviewed records or written policies and procedures;
                   - Observed operations.
     Outline tests conducted or review procedures performed. For example:
                   - Recalculation;
                   - Scanned transaction activity;
                   - Traced supporting documentation.

      3. Source

              The statement of source addresses where or from whom the supporting evidence or
              work paper information was acquired. It should:

     State the source of all information gathered during the review and be included in the work
      paper;
     Include the position (title) and name of individuals mentioned in the source;
     Include both the title and location of reports, documents, or other written material from which
      information was taken.

      4. Sample

              When applicable, this section outlines all details and characteristics of any sampling
              plan used in preparation of the work paper.

PH-PS 017              Edition: D                 Review: 1                Page 11 of 16
  CENTRAL                       SPECIFIC PROCEDURE                              Code: PH-PS 017
 FINANCE and                ON THE SPOT EVALUATION of                           Edition: D
CONTRACTING            IMPLEMENTING AUTHORITIES and PHARE                       Review:1
    UNIT                        FUNDS BENEFICIARY                               Page 12 of 16

             The section should:
     Describe the sample plan used (i.e. judgmental, monetary unit, statistical, etc.);
     Define the population (total number and value, period covered, from what sample was taken,
      etc.);
     State how the sample size was determined and selection technique used; and
     Outline any assumptions, bias, or other pertinent information that might impact the conclusions
      reached from the sample results.

      5. Comments

             The statement of comments is used for the summary of key points, observations,
             exceptions, and other pertinent remarks relating to the work paper that need to be
             recorded but are inappropriate for inclusion in the other standard statement sections.

      6. Conclusions

     Review work papers should include a statement summarizing the results of tests performed and
      the reviewer’s conclusion about the work. This is a reminder of the purpose of the work
      performed and helps during work paper review.

     Write a conclusion statement for each significant review procedure completed.

     Direct the conclusion to ward the purpose of the work paper.

     The conclusion should state the reviewer’s opinion concerning accomplishment of the
      objectives of the test or review procedure performed as stated in the work paper.

     State only what has been proven based on facts known to the reviewer or evidences. Do not
      state the obvious or only test work results. Test work results can and should be summarized as
      the basis for the conclusions, but should not be the conclusion itself. For example, “No
      exceptions noted” is not a conclusion, but an aspect of test work.

     Do not restate information contained in the other statements of purpose, procedure, etc. Also,
      avoid using “seems” and “appears”.

  6.3.3 If, during the course of an engagement, irregularity or the intentional commission of fraud is
  suspected, the engagement team must immediately report their suspicions to the responsible
  Deputy Director, who should report the irregularities or the suspected fraud to the PAO and the
  Irregularity Officer.

  Even if deliberate intent is presumed, the irregularity should be recorded as suspected fraud, until
  the case has been investigated and appropriate action taken. If deliberate intent is not presumed the
  case may be recorded under “other irregularities”. The team should not immediately confront the
  individual suspected of being responsible for the fraud.

  The engagement team leader must document the following information related to the possible
  fraud:


PH-PS 017             Edition: D                   Review: 1                Page 12 of 16
  CENTRAL                       SPECIFIC PROCEDURE                                Code: PH-PS 017
 FINANCE and                ON THE SPOT EVALUATION of                             Edition: D
CONTRACTING            IMPLEMENTING AUTHORITIES and PHARE                         Review:1
    UNIT                        FUNDS BENEFICIARY                                 Page 13 of 16

     The name of the review and the organization being reviewed;
     The date of the review;
     Subject of the review;
     Name of the reviewers;
     Detailed description of the irregularities, exceptions, or other potential violations of law;
     The statute, law, regulation, decree, policy, or procedure that has been potentially violated;
     The name and position held by the individual(s) involved;
     The name and signature of the reviewer documenting this information; and
     Signature of the engagement team leader acknowledging receipt of this information.

  Responsibility: Assessment of FB Unit; SPOs; Final Beneficiaries.
  6.4 On the site check Report

  A written report must be issued after the completion of every review or on-site visit. The report is
  the primary method for the communication of the results of the review.

  6.4.1 The engagement team leader is responsible for preparing the initial draft of the report.


  6.4.2 The responsible Deputy Director must then review the report and use the corresponding work
  paper file as a reference to ensure that all findings and conclusions are accurate and properly
  supported.


  6.4.3 All issues, findings, and conclusions should be discussed with the management of the
  reviewed organization prior to issuing the report. This is usually accomplished during the course
  of the review or at the closing meeting.            This discussion ensures that there are no
  misunderstandings or misinterpretations of fact by providing the opportunity for the reviewed
  organization to clarify items and express their views.


  6.4.4 The draft report must be sent to the reviewed organization for review and management
  responses to findings within seven days after its preparation.


  6.4.5 The final report may not be issued until the management of the reviewed organization has
  sufficiently responded to all findings included in the report.


  6.4.6 After receiving management responses from the engagement team leader is responsible for
  drafting the final report.


  6.4.7 The responsible Deputy Director is responsible for signing and issuing the final version of the
  report.


  6.4.8 The report should be communicated by the Deputy Director to an individual within the
  organization that can ensure that the results are given due consideration (SPO).

PH-PS 017             Edition: D                    Review: 1                 Page 13 of 16
  CENTRAL                         SPECIFIC PROCEDURE                              Code: PH-PS 017
 FINANCE and                  ON THE SPOT EVALUATION of                           Edition: D
CONTRACTING              IMPLEMENTING AUTHORITIES and PHARE                       Review:1
    UNIT                          FUNDS BENEFICIARY                               Page 14 of 16



  6.4.9 All review reports must also be addressed to the PAO.


  6.4.10 Based on the review, the distribution for reports also typically includes some or all of
       the following:

      Program Authorizing Officer
      CFCU’s Irregularity Officer
      SPO and the FB, if the case
      Senior employee responsible for the reviewed area
      National Fund


  The review report should only contain information that is based on fact and supported by the work
  papers.
   All reports should contain the following sections:

  1.   Review of
  2.   Review Objectives
  3.   Review Scope
  4.   Review Findings
  5.   Conclusion
  6.   Management Action Plan

  1.        Review Of
  This section gives a brief, usually high-level description of the processes and area reviewed and
  how it fits within the organization.

  2.        Review Objectives
  This section defines the purpose of the review. It explains why the review was conducted and what
  it was expected to achieve.

  3.        Review Scope
  This section should define the nature and extent of the review that is sufficient to satisfy the stated
  objectives. The scope should include all systems, records, time periods, personnel, and physical
  properties relevant to the review.

  4.        Review Findings
  Review findings are pertinent statements of fact. Those findings that are necessary to support or
  prevent misunderstanding of the reviewer’s conclusions and recommendations should be included
  in this section.Less significant findings may be communicated orally or through informal
  correspondence.



PH-PS 017               Edition: D                  Review: 1                 Page 14 of 16
  CENTRAL                          SPECIFIC PROCEDURE                          Code: PH-PS 017
 FINANCE and                   ON THE SPOT EVALUATION of                       Edition: D
CONTRACTING               IMPLEMENTING AUTHORITIES and PHARE                   Review:1
    UNIT                           FUNDS BENEFICIARY                           Page 15 of 16

  Each finding should be accompanied by a corrective action recommended by the engagement team,
  as well as a management response to the finding and recommendation. Management responses
  should specify the individual responsible for implementing the corrective action and an expected
  date of completion.

  Note: retain a copy of the Report where each finding is referenced to the relating work-papers.

  5.        Conclusion
  The conclusion is the reviewer’s evaluation and opinion of the effects of the findings on the area
  reviewed. The conclusion usually puts the findings in perspective based upon their overall
  implications. The opinion should fall within one of five ranges:
  a)      Satisfactory
  b)      Satisfactory with Exception
  c)      Substandard
  d)      Unsatisfactory
  e)      Critically Unsatisfactory

  6.        Management Action Plan

  The Management Action Plan is a summary of all corrective action proposed by the reviewed
  organization’s management, the person responsible for implementing the corrective action, and the
  date by which it will be accomplished. The information contained in this plan can aid the reviewer
  when performing a follow up review.

  Responsibility: Assessment of FB Unit.

  6.5 Follow-up phase

  Follow up is the process by which the nominated engagement team determines the adequacy,
  effectiveness, and timeliness of actions taken by management on reported findings. A follow up
  review is very similar to a process review; however the objectives and scope are narrowed to focus
  on the deficiencies noted in the previous report (Annex 5). The following section provides
  guidelines for the performance of follow up reviews.

  The same planning, performing, and reporting procedures should be followed when performing a
  follow up review, as when performing a regular review. However, these additional procedures
  should be performed:

  1.      Review of the findings in the previous report to determine the scope of the follow up
        review;
  2.      Design the appropriate review tests and procedures to be used to evaluate the corrective
        action;
  3.      Conduct the fieldwork and document the results of the work performed;
  4.      Implementation due dates should be verified and revised if necessary; and
  5.      Issue a follow up review report.




PH-PS 017                Edition: D               Review: 1                Page 15 of 16
    CENTRAL                      SPECIFIC PROCEDURE                             Code: PH-PS 017
   FINANCE and               ON THE SPOT EVALUATION of                          Edition: D
  CONTRACTING           IMPLEMENTING AUTHORITIES and PHARE                      Review:1
      UNIT                       FUNDS BENEFICIARY                              Page 16 of 16

   If the engagement team determines that sufficient steps have not been taken to eliminate
   deficiencies identified during the previous review, the issue should be escalated to the superior of
   the responsible person.

   Note:

   It is mandatory to conduct a follow up review within three months, if the previous review
   identified major control weakness, fraud or resulted in disciplinary action.

   On the basis of the follow-up of the implementations within the Action Plan, the Assessment of FB
   Unit draws up reports to the CFCU’s management (Director and Deputy Director).
   The Assessment of FB Unit fills in the task of follow-up of the action plan report as well as of the
   action plans, specifying in the follow-up report submitted to the CFCU’s Director and Deputy
   Director the state of the implementation of the recommendations and of the measures included in
   the Action Plan.

   Responsibility: Final Beneficiaries, Assessment of FB Unit.


7. Forms:

Annex 1. Procedural and institutional questionnaire
Annex 2. Schqeduling the Implementing Authorities Assessment Mission
Annex 3. Internal Checklist, on the spot-site visit, for Implementing Authorities assessment
Annex 4. Checklist for internal control review of the SPO’s
Annex 5. Internal checklist, for follow-up of the PHARE Implementing Authorities




 PH-PS 017             Edition: D                  Review: 1                Page 16 of 16

								
To top