Agenda item

The report summarises internal audit activity in respect of audit reports issued during the period 1 July to 30 September 2014 as well as reporting on the performance of the Internal Audit service.

Geoff Drake (Senior Audit Manager) presented the report to the Committee by highlighting that Appendix D of the report was for information and sought feedback to the proposal in removing the circulation of background papers with the main agenda. The Committee agreed that they found the background papers very useful and would like to continue receiving them as they were not very long.

ACTION: Senior Audit Manager

Geoff Drake drew the Committee’s attention to the list of recommendations that were considered by Management not to implement, as featured on page 73, Appendix C of the report. The Committee queried the number of outstanding audit recommendations identified at paragraph 5.1.9, page 65 of the report and whether this demonstrated that management were not taking audit recommendations seriously enough. The Committee’s attention was drawn to the table at paragraph 5.1.13 showing these represented a small scale of audit recommendations.  There was concern that some were over 3 months overdue, which was almost entirely the result of new procedures being developed, as part of a wider paper that was being developed by the department . It was suggested that information be provided to the committee to clarify positions for all outstanding audit recommendations in future reports.

ACTION: Senior Audit Manager

Members referred and discussed the Total Facilities Management, Final Internal Audit Report June 2014, background report, which was circulated to Members only, with the agenda. In response the following points were noted as a result of a lengthy discussion.

• Contract was awarded without a full range of Key Performance Indicators.
• The LINK service was set up with no Key Performance Indicators in place.
• The IT management systems were not functioning.
• Quality assurance methods were not defined.
• A large payment was authorised, signed-off by the Strategic Partnership Board.
• Procurement was led by RBK&C under Hammersmith & Fulham’s name.
• The framework was established under H&F.
• Need to identify the mobilisation and complexities of the contract.
• Need to identify the timescales of procurement and implementation.
• Contract was not considered for any other supplier than Amey, thus raising concerns around the bidding process.

The audit assurance level given was discussed and the Committee asked to receive a report on the reasoning’s that Internal Audit went through to achieve a “Limited” assurance opinion on this audit rather than the ‘Nil’ assurance that members would have expected.

ACTION: Senior Audit Manager

It was noted that in response to the bulleted list above the Committee asked that management report back to address the observations and concerns raised.

ACTION: Executive Director of Finance & Corporate Services

Councillor P J Murphy recommended, as a means to go forward and to keep a firm grip on the contract, a report on Total Facilities Management should be added to the Finance and Delivery Policy Accountability Committee. It was noted that Councillor Murphy welcomed Councillor Adam and Councillor Botterill to participate with the work around addressing the issues raised, as Councillor Botterill was the Cabinet Member at the time of approving the contract in 2012/13.

  ACTION: Tri-Borough Head of Facilities Management

Members referred to the H&F background report, Final Internal Audit Report for Jack Tizard School, September 2014 and it was agreed that letters detailing the audit guidance on offer would be circulated. It was noted that the Finance and Governance team would liaise with HR to support this process.

  ACTION: Executive Director of Finance and Corporate Services

Members referred to the background report Public Health (Governance) with a perception that it was not reporting seriously enough. In response, it was highlighted that the model used was the same as Westminster City Council’s  Internal Audit service and that from 1 April 2015 there would be a standard model report format for all Tri and Bi-borough audits. It was noted that they were already in use by H&F Internal Audit. It was agreed that the members’ comments would be reported back to the Tri-borough Audit Service. 

ACTION: Senior Audit Manager

RESOLVED –

THAT the contents of the report be noted.