Question NW3219 to the Minister of Arts and Culture”
10 November 2017 - NW3219
Grootboom, Mr GA to ask the Minister of Arts and Culture”
Wheteher he instituted disciplinary action against the officials of his department who were found to have been implicated in the adverse findings of the auditor-general ‘s 2016-17 report on the financial statements of his department; if not, why not; if so, (a) what are the total number of officials who have faced disciplinary action and (b) what are the detail in case?
Reply:
a) The total number of officials who have faced disciplinary action were 18.
b) Details of disciplinary action in each are as follows:
|
Incident Description |
Official No 1 |
|
Procurement of services not done through SCM and approval of appointment of service provider not done by the delegated official |
|
Incident Description |
Official No 2 |
|
Procurement of services not done through SCM |
|
Incident Description |
Official No 3 |
|
Decision to appoint the service provider not done by a delegated official. Supplier/service provider appointed without having an original Tax Clearance Certificate and BBEE Cetificate |
|
Incident Description |
Official No 4 |
|
Procurement of services not done through SCM and no evidence of recommending and approval by the Accounting Officer |
|
|
Payments made to the supplier in excess of the approved contract amount and no approval of extension of contract by the Accounting Officer |
|
Incident Description |
Official No 5 |
|
Performing artists appointed not registered on CSD |
|
Incident Description |
Official No 6 |
|
Procurement of service not done through SCM and approval not done by the delegated official |
|
Incident Description |
Official No 7 |
|
Procurement of services not done through SCM and approval of appointment of service provider not done by the delegated official |
|
Incident Description |
Official No 8 |
|
Supplier/service provider appointed without having an original Tax Clearance Certificate and BBEE Cetificate |
|
Incident Description |
Official No 9 |
|
Procurement of services not done through SCM and approval of appointment of service provider not done by the delegated official |
|
Incident Description |
Official No 10 |
|
Procurement of services not done through SCM and reasons provided to deviate are not justifiable |
|
Incident Description |
Official No 11 |
|
Procurement of services not done through SCM and approval of appointment of service provider not done by the delegated official (DG). |
|
Incident Description |
Official No 12 |
|
Procurement of services not done through SCM and approval of additional items not done by the delegated official |
|
Incident Description |
Official No 13 |
|
Method or procurement used is incosistent with those prescribed in terms of PN 8 of 2007/2008 paragraph 3.2 |
|
Incident Description |
Official No 14 |
|
Decision to appoint the service provider not done by a delegated official |
|
Incident Description |
Official No 15 |
|
No tax clearance certificate was submitted by the supplier during the procurement of services |
|
Incident Description |
Official No 16 |
|
Procurement of services not done through SCM and approval of repairs not done by delegated official |
|
Incident Description |
Official No 17 |
|
Award of procurement was made without an original Tax Clearance Certificate and no completion of SBD documents |
|
Incident Description |
Official No 18 |
|
Appointment of consultants without following a competitive bidding process |
|
|
Competitive bidding process were not followed in in the awards of bids |
|
|
Procurement of services not done through SCM and reasons provided to deviate were not justifiable |
|
|
Request for quotations did not stipulate the preference point system to be applied |
|
|
Appointment of service providers without valid tax clearance certificate |
|
|
Three quotations were not obtained and reasons provided were not justifiable |
|
|
BBEE points allocated on invaliud certificate resulting in incorrect award |
|
|
Expenditure not committed by a delegated official |
|
|
Evaluation criteria applied differs from original request for quotation |
|
|
Supplier with lowest quote not selected and no reasons provided and approved by the delegated official |
|
|
Performing artist appointed not registered on CSD |
|
|
Variation order in excess of 15% not approved by National Treasury |
|
|
Required number of quotes not obtained and reasons provided were not justifiable |
|
|
No evidence that the bid was received before the closing date and time |
|
|
EME affidavit used to allocate BBEEE points instead of certificate, resulting in incorrect allocation of points and award |