Audit observed that:
i. A contract for the Rehabilitation of Port Harcourt Ports Road Network and Water Distribution System – Port Harcourt was awarded to a contractor at a contract sum of N1,847,526,061.50 through award letter referenced HQ/EDCP/OP/C.8/0082 dated 18th January, 2007 with 18 months completion period;
ii. A provision of N9,500,000.00 was made and paid for Performance Bond to the contractor, whereas, it was not the responsibility of the Authority to pay for the performance bond obtained by the contractor from the bank.
iii. A total provision of N40,500,000.00 was made and paid for Insurance but the Authority could not produce evidence to show that the amount was actually used for such purpose.
iv. A provision of N50,000,000.00 was made and paid for compensation of economic crops and buildings, for removal and relocation of existing installations for electricity telephone, water supply and other utilities on external road to UTC junction but there was no record showing how such a huge amount was utilized.
v. A provision of N9,000,000.00 was made for the purchase of 2 (two) new vehicles for the project Engineer’s representative. Equally, a provision of N3,000,000.00 was made for the repair, maintenance and running cost of the official vehicles for the project Engineer’s representative but there was no record to show that the vehicles mentioned in the BOQ were actually purchased.
vi. A provision of N3,772,885.00 was made for service to project Engineers representatives but how such amount was utilized was not known.
vii. A provision of N4,320,000.00 was made to rent, furnish and maintain residential accommodation for the project Engineer’s representative out of which the sum of N4,139,168.00 was valued and paid on IPC No.9 but there was no record to backup such payment.
viii. Ten (10) Interim Payment Certificates (IPCs) totaling N1,608,970,319.44 (87.09%) has been issued as at 19th April, 2016, and
ix. Physical inspection carried out at the project site showed that the failed portion of the road that was observed during previous audit was now part of the work awarded to another contractor. There was no record confirming that the contract awarded to the previous contractor was evaluated and terminated before the new award which includes the road covered by the new contractor. Therefore, value cannot be said to have been derived from the huge funds expended especially on the water distribution system that has been put to use.