Why would a technical University award contract to external firm to build entrance when the University us teaching students how to become contractors and more in Ghana, this sad and waste of State money.
Underwhelming is a word you could often apply to Tamale Technical University (TaTU) over the past decade, You know why.
A 2015 Report of the Auditor – General, in relation to the audited accounts of the Tamale Technical University for the period 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015 recounts in bald language some unpardonable errors committed by the accounts section and the works department of the University.
The Report of the Auditor-General observed contract irregularities in four projects initiated by the University. The report found that Overpayments totalling GH¢57,668.74 were made on the following projects.
1. Construction of main entrance gate
Contract Price (GH¢) 46, 732.91
Payments Made (GH¢) 82, 858.15
Overpayments (GH¢) 6, 918.73
2. Construction of machine shop
Contract Price (GH¢) 150, 539.30
Payments Made (GH¢) 187, 237.50
Overpayments (GH¢) 36, 698.20
3. Construction of an underground reservoir
Contract Price (GH¢) 40, 042.00
Payments Made (GH¢) 68, 004.55
Overpayments (GH¢) 7, 586.80
4. Construction of market phase I.
Contract Price (GH¢) 47, 531
Payments Made (GH¢) 54, 886.00
Overpayments (GH¢) 6, 505.00
As stated by the report, Variations ranging from GH¢ 805.00 (1.7%) to GH¢ 29,206.90 (59.9%) were made without justifications.
In an attempt to justify the fictitious payments management of the University made to undeserving contractors, management of TaTU disclosed that payments for the projects were based on measured work and not contract sum.
But auditors disagreed with the management position because the progress payment made on the contract had exceeded the contract sum. The auditors added that management of TaTU failed to provide appropriate documentation to support their claim.
The auditors, however, recommended that the University recover the total overpayments of GH¢57,668.74 from the contractors or surcharge the officers who were involved in the contract to refund the overpayments.
Source; Bernard journal