My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Report of the State Auditor 1993
CWCB
>
Publications
>
Backfile
>
Report of the State Auditor 1993
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2010 3:55:23 PM
Creation date
9/30/2006 10:13:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Publications
Year
1993
Title
CWCB CF Performance Audit Report of the State Auditor February 1993
CWCB Section
Finance
Author
State Auditor
Description
Performance Audit February 1993
Publications - Doc Type
Other
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />33 <br /> <br />PROJECT APPROVAL PROCESS <br /> <br />Chapter 3 <br /> <br />Introduction <br /> <br />During the course of our audit, we reviewed selected contract files for projects <br />recommended by the Board and authorized by the General Assembly. We found <br />that the Board has guidelines for reviewing and approving various documents <br />required to evaluate a loan application and to support cash advances during <br />construction. However, Board staff do not always document their reviews or <br />approvals. <br /> <br />Guidelines Are Established for the Construction <br />Fund <br /> <br />The Board has established guidelines that describe the loan program, the <br />application process, and administrative procedures for construction of a project. <br />Also, the Board incorporates Construction Fund program procedures into its <br />contracts with project sponsors. <br /> <br />These guidelines require Board staff to review and approve specific check points <br />and various documents in the process. <br /> <br />Board Does Not Consistently Document Its <br />Compliance With Guidelines <br /> <br />Board staff did not consistently document their reviews or approvals as required <br />by established guidelines. As a result, they could not demonstrate that reviews <br />and approvals were made, as appropriate. We reviewed a sample of four project <br />files and identified the following examples of incomplete documentation. <br /> <br />· Two files did not have documentation of the Board review and approval <br />of project plans and specifications prepared by the consulting engineers. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.