D08-002/B1-1
RISKS ANALYSIS AND STRONG + WEAK POINTS
CONSTRUCTIONS IN THE MISSIONS
FILE D08-002
Control objectives
Risks
Expected controls
Existing controls/ Apparent strong
points
Apparent weak points
Materiality
Tests to perform
1. Environment
Integrity and ethic
 Instructions and policies describe
the acceptable practices and are
communicated to the employees
 Employees don’t know practices
that are not acceptable
 Frauds
 Diffusion and signature of the
employee’s charter
 Regular reminder of the ethical
principles
 Information on the existence of
the Garec
 Deviations are identified and
corrected


High
- Not tested: done during previous audit in other missions:
Attitude of the staff
 The staff is concerned by the
objectives of MSF
 Measure of the satisfaction of the
staff
Organizational structure
 Responsibilities are clear
Recom. n°
FRAP n°
- HQ: to receive the mission’s organizational chart, jobdescriptions of the expatriates: cotl, constructors, coter, log
project, ...
- Mission: analysis of the job-description of the national
staff involved in the constructions, to receive the
organizational chart of the department from the cotl
- Mission: analysis of the general organizational chart and
the ones per project
- Mission: interview cotl, coter, log, constructors so they
explain their tasks
- Mission: analysis of the organizational chart and compare
with interviews
- Analysis of the job-descriptions
- During other tests: to see the possibility of improvement
of the segregation of duty
MD01
MR02
MR03
SR02
SR03
MD47
SD47
D47
Low
 Clear jobs-descriptions that are
not redundant
 Up-to-date organizational charts


High
 Organization of the work allows
the segregation of duties
Combined responsibilities make
frauds and errors possible
 Delegation of responsibility – jobdescriptions

 Segregation of duty is
limited due to the small
number of staffs
Medium
Key functions and back-up
 Identification and recognition of
key functions
 Existence of back-up persons
 Discontinued activities when staff
is absent
 Identification of key staff and
substitutes
 Planning and organization of
back-ups, training of the substitutes


High
- Interview cotl, constructors and supervisors
 Lack of definition of the profile
 Employees recruited don’t have
the required experience
 Errors, inefficiency, bad quality of
the constructions
 Post profile describes required
competencies
 Lack of tests mean of verification
of the competencies
 Checking of references and
diplomas; analysis of the CV

 There is no appropriate
test of selection per function:
it depends on the
competence of the cotl
Low
For the national staff in construction (after interview cotl):
- Interview adminco for the administrative organization
- Interview cotl et responsible for the construction to know
the organization of the recruitment et difficulties, required
competences, control of the knowledge
- Adminco: analysis of the CV of the staff to identify preexisting competencies
- Expat: analyse of CV (back in Brussels)
 Low performance not detected
and/or discussed => no
improvement pf the competencies
 Low motivation
 Yearly evaluation
 Standard document written by
headquarters
Low
- Interview adminco : to determine the modalities of
evaluation and to observe the evaluations of the logconstructors (to see quality, respect format,
implementation of planned measures)
- Interview cotl, log, supervisors for the organization of the
evaluations of the staff
 Lack of knowledge or competence
to perform tasks
 Training policy
 Analysis of the needs

 Selection of experienced
constructors
Recruitment
 The recruited staff has required
experience for the post
Evaluation
 There is a system of evaluation
allowing the follow-up of the staff
Training
 A training is foreseen for the
expatriate staff
Initial doc.
ref.
will be analyzed if important violations are observed during
the visit.
 Dissatisfaction
 High level of absenteeism
 Organizational chart does not
reflect the work organization
 Job-descriptions are not adapted,
not up-to-date
 Responsibilities not defined
=> loss of time, errors, tasks not
done, conflicts
N° test
sheet

Low
SD01
D01
K3-Q1
MD02
SD02
D02
MR04
SR04
K3-Q2
D08-002/B1-2
Control objectives
Risks
Expected controls
 A training is foreseen for the
national staff
 Lack of knowledge or competence
to perform tasks
 Training policy
 Analysis of the needs
 Budget available
Regulations, laws
 Procedure of identification
 Lack of knowledge of regulations
 Existence of a legal adviser
 Availability of legal texts
Existing controls/ Apparent strong
points
 If done by MSF: training on during
the work
Apparent weak points
Materiality
Tests to perform

Low
- Interview adminco : policy and organization of the
trainings, mechanism of evaluation
- Interview cotl, supervisors : organization of the trainings


High
- Interview cotl and responsible constructions: mechanism
of identification of laws and national regulations, to receive
a copy of the texts
- To read the texts: if feasible (risk of lack of time and
knowledge)
- To determine the procedures to ensure that laws and
regulations are respected
 Mechanisms of respect and
adaptation
 Late adaptation
 Penalties, legal action

 Signed agreements with
authorities (MOU)
 Restrictive agreements, non
feasible clauses
 Technical part of MOU approved
by referent constructions
 MOU approved by the cell –
operational part
 Lack of budget for the activities –
lack of resources
 Taxes not included in budget
(VAT) or included when refundable
 Cost includes facilities: road,
electricity, sewerage,...
 Absence of budget follow-up with
lack of detection of over or under
spending
 Pre-study with estimation of bill
of quantities (material and time) or
cost per m2 if experience

 Regular budget follow-ups
discussed in coordination

 Absence of policy defining a
framework
 Modalities for decision taking are
not defined
 Clear and defined principles
 Clear responsibilities
 Decision process not clear:
competent persons are not
consulted, conflicts, constructions
that can not be done
 In principle, constructions
are outsourced
High
 The mission and nature of MSF
are not known
 Objectives are not conform with
the mission of MSF
 Objectives not clear enough
 Objectives not feasible (too
ambitious)
 Absence of input having as
consequence the lack of
appropriation of defined
objectives
 Objectives not achievable
 Changes during construction
(budget overspending; delays)
 Communication of the charter
and values of MSF
 Objectives defined yearly in action
plans
 Objectives SMART


Low


High



High
 Projects of construction notn
approved
 Projects included in AAP or copro
Budget and available resources
 Determination of the budget / all
needs are covered
 Budget follow-up
2. Risks management
Construction policy
Definition of the policy
Mission and objectives of MSF in the
country
 Mission of MSF
 Established and feasible
objectives
 Participation of the middle
management (fieldco, comed,
med focal point, …) in the
definition of objectives
 The construction projects are
approved
High

N° test
sheet
Recom. n°
FRAP n°
Initial doc.
ref.
MD03
SD03
MR05
SR06
SR06
FRAP01 R04
K3-Q3
FRAP02
K3-Q4
D03
MD48
SD48
D48
MD04
SD04
D04
MD05
SD05
D05
 MOU are sometimes too
detailed on the technical part
High
- To receive the MOU and to identify aspect related to the
constructions
- To check the respect of the MOU (construction part), to
verify that constructions done where in the MOU

High
- Interview finco: preparation of the budgets
- Interview cotl et resp. construction: to see if budget is
sufficient
- to analyse budgets in parallel with action plans
- to check way budgets have been prepared and inclusion of
taxes
- Adminfinco and cotl, resp. constructions: existence and
modalities, communication
- Cotl and resp.constr. : Modalities of detailed follow-up per
site
- Analysis of the expenses in relation with the budget
MD06
SD06
D06
MD07
SD07
D07
SR16
FRAP04 R06
- interview kick-off of the dirlog
- reading of the project of policy
D73
FRAP05 R01
- Interview hom, cotl and resp.constr , log cell: to identify
the objectives for the constructions, how they are defined,
the implication of technicians
- Reading and analysis of action plans/logical frameworks –
to compare with interview
- interview log cell : implication and method of
determination of objectives for construction
- interview cotl, cotezr and resp.constr. : implication in the
definition of objectives
- interview comed, fieldco, medfocal point: implication in
the definition of objectives, in the drawing of plans
- to identify the changes done after the work started and
impact: interview comed, fieldco, med focal point,
constructor, … To identify the reason.
- to identify projects of construction (interview log cell and
cotl) and to check inclusion in copro or AAP
MD08
SD08
D08


High
High
MD49
SD49
MR06
SR07
FRAP03 R05
SR13
K4-Q1
K3-Q5
K3-Q6
K4-Q2
L1
K2-Q1
K3-Q7
SR08 SR09
SR10 SR11
SR12
K2-Q1
K3-Q7 Q9
K5-Q1 Q2
D49
MD09
SD09
D09
K3-Q8
K1-Q2
D08-002/B1-3
Control objectives
Risks identification
 Feasibility study
 Environmental study
 Stability of soil study
Risks
Expected controls
Existing controls/ Apparent strong
points
Apparent weak points
Materiality
Tests to perform
N° test
sheet
 Means not adapted to objectives
 Overuse of budget, time,
technical limitations
 Not optimal choice to answer the
needs
 Analysis of the context (war, postconflict)
 Relations with authorities, law
related to land ownership
 Accessibility
 Access to water, electricity
 Needs (population to reach)
 Evaluation of the conditions of
existing structures
 Climate, local HR, availability of
materials
 Prevision of means of
maintenance
=> extract of guide of 96 + other
 Evaluation of the competence:
interview and questions – visit of
works (advice given by referent
construction)
 Audit technician: dangerous
location (neighbour), supply
during construction (access)
 Implication watsan in the project

 Constructions not
authorised in context of war
or in emergency
 No construction allowed at
the end of a project
High
- For projects selected: to check the existence of a study
and to identify the elements
MD10
SD10


High
 Holes of 1 m deep to test
 For ref. construction: to use a
professional that will do
foundations as he is used to
 Needs in water and electricity
taken in account


High
 Impact not measured and not
foreseen
 Problem of contamination, of
waste management (including
water)
 Lack of stability of building
 collapse
 Participation of the technicians
 The constraints of different
professions are not taken in account
 Site description before start
 Lack of knowledge of the situation
 Description of site
 Remaining spoil earth
 Condition of surrounding
buildings
 Absence of procedures or of
handbook
 Non-actualization of procedures
 Handbook(s) with procedures
 Absence of knowledge and nonrespect of the procedures

3. Control activities per task
Guidelines - HQ
 Existence of procedure handbook
 Actualization of the procedures
 Communication to the staff
Guidelines - mission
 Existence of procedures
handbook
 Actualisation of the procedures
 Compliance with the standard
procedures
 Pertinence of the measures
 Compliance with legal rules


High
Recom. n°
FRAP n°
Initial doc.
ref.
K3-Q10
D10
SR17
SR18
FRAP06 R07
-Interview : resp watsan and watsan (Joos) in relation with
log to identify their point of view in relation with their
implication in projects of construction
- To check the existence of environmental study
MD11
SD11
D11
MR07
SR19
FRAP07 R08
- Interview resp. construction to determine analysis done
MD12
SD12
D12
K6-Q1
K3-Q11
K3-Q12
FRAP08 R09
- Interview log cell and cotl + resp. contruct : list of persons
consulted
MD50
SD50
D50
K3-Q7 Q13
K2-Q1
- Interview HQ referent
- To obtain the guidelines, handbooks
- To check update date, how it is distributed and how it is
updated.
- Interview referent HQ
- Interview cotl and constructor to know the documents
known and used, method of diffusion
D74
MD51
SD51
D51
FRAP09 R02
- Interview cotl and resp. constructions: to obtain
handbook, notes, memos
- To check the update date, how it is distributed and how it
is updated.
- Reading the documents
MD52
SD52
D52
MR01
SR01
FRAP10 R03
Low
 Guide of 96 for the elaboration of
a construction project

High
High
 Absence of procedures or of
handbook
 Non-actualization of procedures
 Handbook(s) with procedures
High
 Non-compliance
 Procedures are not complete
 Lack of controls
 Non-respect of laws, fine,
penalties, delays of execution

High
 Audit technician: copy to the cotl
and cell of MOH standards
High
- Interview cotl and constructor: method of verification of
the respect, existence of MOH standards
- Comparison of the MSF documents with legal documents
MD13
SD13
D13
MD14
SD14
D14
FRAP09 R02
K7-Q1
K2-Q3
K3-Q14
K3-Q15
K3-Q4 Q16
D08-002/B1-4
Control objectives
Risks
Expected controls
Existing controls/ Apparent strong
points
Apparent weak points
Materiality
Choice of the site
 Choice of the place where to
construct
Plan of the site (organisation of the
buildings)
 Organization minimise the
movements between buildings
(patient and staff flows)
Management of subcontractors:
constructor – architect - ...
 Preference for subcontracting
constructions
Identification and choice of the
architect
 Identification – selection of the
potential architects
 Verification of the legal
recognition (agréation)
 Contract
Tests to perform
First: list of the construction sites of the year 08 (started or
finished) with budget
- Observation
- Interview resp. construction
N° test
sheet
Recom. n°
FRAP n°
Initial doc.
ref.
 Lack of space
 Localisation not adapted
 Proximity with dangerous
neighbours (military base,
industries, ...)
 4 to 6 m2 of ground per m2 of
construction
 proximity of the population
 proximity of communication axes
 site not polluted
 flat ground
 no risk of flood
 not on earthquake fault (audit
guide)
 staff availability (audit guide)
High
 Non functional organisation
 Loss of time
 Previous analysis of movements
(flows) with the participation and
approval of medical staff
 Buildings generating bad smell
outside
 Extensions remain possible
 Climate taken in account (wind,
sun, rain), noises
High
 Low quality of work when directly
done by MSF (lack of expertise)
 Legal risk (accidents, errors and
lack of registration of MSF as
constructor)

High
- Interview cotl and resp. constructions: to determine the
method used (contract or direct work) and legal
verifications done if MSF does the work
MD53
SD53
D53
 Non optimal choice, situations of
conflict of interest
 Cost of the architect: may result
in too ambitious and not adapted
project (because paid in %)
 Bid (concours): realisation of preproject (avant projet) (main
constructions sites)
 Or based on recommendations,
reputation or works already done
=> guide 96


High
- Interview cotl and resp. construction in mission: to
determine the method of identification of the architect
- To check modalities of bid and choice (if there is)
MD17
SD17
D17
K3-Q20

High
- Interview cotl and resp. construction: modalities of
verification
- Test: to check existence of registration
MD18
SD18
D18
K3-Q21
 Detailed explanation of tasks to
perform, meetings to have
 Standard of quality of fabric (gros
œuvre) and finishing work (finitions)
 Modalities of spreaded payments
 Delays of execution foreseen with
penalties
=> guide 96
 Contract analyzed by legal adviser

High
- Test: to check the content of the contract with architect
MD19
SD19
D19
 Architect not authorized
 Plans not approved by recognized
local architect if done by MSF expat
architect
 Contract not complete
 Contract not valid (missing part as
witnesses)
 Contract not well balanced
 Cancellation for act of god or war
not possible
- Observation of the plan
- Interview resp. construction
- Interview medco and med focal point
MD15
SD15
D15
MD16
SD16
D16

K3-Q17
MR08
SR20
SR21
FRAP11 R10
K3-Q18
MR09
K3-Q19
SR22
D08-002/B1-5
Control objectives
Master plan (avant-projet)
 Existence of a master plan
Authorisations of construction
 Ownership of ground
 Authorization to build (permis de
bâtir)
Project
 Existence of a project
Identification of contractors (or
subcontractors)
 Identification - selection of the
potential contractors
 Selection based on tender
Risks
Expected controls
 Lack of vision on the final project
 Error during approbation
 Building not corresponding with
local standard
 Ground belongs to third parties
(not MOH)
 Absence of authorization (risk of
destruction)
 Authorization does not cover the
building foreseen
 Errors in the realization of the
works
 Non optimal choice, situations of
conflict of interest
 Contractor does not have financial
capacity or whose financial situation
is not healthy
 Financial loss: selection is not
optimal
Existing controls/ Apparent strong
points
Apparent weak points
Materiality
Tests to perform
N° test
sheet
Recom. n°
FRAP n°
Initial doc.
ref.
 View on the existing situation and
future one if rehabilitation
 Views of the buildings if new
construction
 Description of materials,
estimation of costs and aesthetics
 Approval by health authorities
and MSF (signatures)
 => guide 96
 limit of the ground, topography,
vegetation, North roads
 planning of flow of people
(previous)
High
- Test: to check existence and completeness of master plan
MD20
SD20
D20
MR10
K3-Q22
 Ownership attest from MOH
 Extract of land property (cadastre)
 Copy kept in HQ (will of ref.
Construction)
 Authorization to build in name of
the local health authorities
High
- To identify controls done
- To check documents received by MSF
MD21
SD21
D21
High
- To check the existence of authorisation to build and
correspondence with final plan
MD22
SD22
D22
Includes:
 Detailed plans
 Bill of quantities detailed and
detail of tasks
 Specifications with the contract
between contractor and client,
tender document, technical
explanations
=> guide 96
° plan of the flow of people
(previous)
=> audit technician: level of
technical info (ex: drainage)
High
- Test: to heck the existence and completeness of the
project
MD23
SD23
D23
 Procedure of pre-qualification
 List of pre-qualified contractors

 Tender (procedure change
according the budget)
 Procedures described in fin-log
news n°4 of June 07

FRAP12 R11
K3-Q23
MR11
MR12
MR13
SR23
FRAP13 R12
K3-Q24
MR14
MR15
SR24 SR25
SR26
FRAP14
FRAP15 R13
FRAP16 R14
K3-Q25
K3-Q26
K7-Q2
High
- Interview cotl et resp. constructions at the HQ and
mission: determination of the identification method of
contractors and verification performed (or to do if opened
tender process)
MD54
SD54
D54
MR16
SR27
FRAP17 R15
High
- To ascertain the respect of the procedures for contracts in
relation with the value of the contract
MD24
SD24
D24
MR17
FRAP18 R16
R17
D08-002/B1-6
Control objectives
Risks
Expected controls
 Content of the tender file
 The offers made are not reliable
due to the lack of information given
by MSF
 Method of choice
 Dispute, contestation with
contractor (work stopped due to
legal action)
 Opening of the tender
 Decision not transparent
 Verification of the content of the
bids
 Contractor chosen when
information are missing
 Comparison of offers
 The best offer at the point of view
of the price and guarantee of
quality is not chosen
 Master plans (Plans de principes)
and execution plans
 Specifications with contracts and
formalities requested in the offer
(registration, experience,
organization of the enterprise, delay
for giving the bidding)
 Detailed bill of quantities and
summary of works to do (so unit
prices can be given)
 The dossiers are given the same
day and same time at the
contractors
 Information meeting for all
=> guide 96
 Method determined at the
beginning
 Communicated in the dossier for
bidding
 Opening in the presence of
constructors
 Registration of global prices and
delays on a document signed by
contractors
 Completeness of documents
requested
 Verification of calculation of
prices
 Analysis of the proposition of
change
 Experience of works in public
health
 Logic in the planning of activities
=> guide log
 End date, penalties, existence f
requested material, security of
material on site (theft, payment of
initial studies, taxes)
 Transparent criteria pre-defined
(points given)
 Extreme offers are less attractive
 Recapitulative table and choice
signed by MSF and health
representative
=> see method in guide 96, annexe 6
 Inclusion of good proposition of
other constructors
 Visit of sites, request of
guaranties
 Table of analyse of offers with
signatures
Visit done by ref construction and
cotl
 Negotiation with selected
companies
 To miss opportunity to decrease
costs
 Lower transparency
Existing controls/ Apparent strong
points
Apparent weak points
Materiality
Tests to perform

High
- To check completeness of information given and respect
of procedure
High
- To check explanation of method given in the dossier
- Interview col and resp. construction to confirm method
MD26
SD26
D26
High
- Interview cotl and resp. construction
- To ascertain the existence of signed document
MD27
SD27
D27
High
- For the offer retained: to check the existence of the
requested elements
- Interview resp. construction: to identify controls done
MD28
SD28
High
- Interview resp. construction : method of definition of
criteria, method used for selection
- Verification of calculations and choice made
MD29
SD29
D29
- Interview resp. construction : method used for selection
of companies interviewed
- Verification of results in the table of analyse and offers
received
MD55
SD55
D55


High
N° test
sheet
MD25
SD25
D25
Recom. n°
FRAP n°
MR18
SR28
FRAP19
Initial doc.
ref.
K3-Q27
K3-Q28
MR19
K3-Q29
K3-Q30
MR20
K3-Q31
FRAP20 R18
K3-Q32
SR29
FRAP21 R19
D08-002/B1-7
Control objectives
Risks
Expected controls
 The contractors and
subcontractors respect their staff
 Non-respect of minimum
standard defined by par MSF
List of the MSP principles MSP for
subcontractors of MSF:
 Social security
 Absence of discrimination
 no < 16 years old
 legal minimum salary respected +
> 2 USD/jour or 60 USD/month
 Defined work time, regulations for
the overtimes and compensation
 Regulation for sick leave
 Prevention of work accident
 Freedom of association
Management of contracts with the
contractor (or subcontractor)
 Type of contract
 Type of contract not adapted to
the risk MSF wants
 Added payment above the agreed
budget
 Absence of contract
 Loss of contract

 Respect of legal constraints
Existing controls/ Apparent strong
points
Apparent weak points
 No recommendation
concerning the type of
contract
Materiality
Tests to perform
High
- Interview cotl and resp. constructor: to identify
verifications done
- Adminco: legal minimum salary
- Verification based on documents
- Visit of site : observation and interview of the workers
N° test
sheet
MD30
SD30
D30
Recom. n°
FRAP n°
MR21
FRAP22 R20
High
To read the contracts to identify if there are high risks of
budget deviations
MD31
SD31
D31
MR22
SR30
FRAP23 R21

Low
Tested with following points.
MR28
 Penalties
 Possibilities de recourse limited
 Contract read by legal adviser
High
- Interview cotl and resp. constructions : practices, to
receive comments of legal adviser on contract analyzed
 Existence of provision for delays
unforeseen events
 Financial losses paid by MSF

High
-To read the contracts and identify the clauses
 Plan of payment in function of the
work completed
 Payment done before work (loss
of pressure in case of delay)
 Agreed payment plan in contract
with identified milestone
High
- To read the contract and check the existence of payment
plan with verifiable steps
 Existence of deduction for
guarantee
 Absence of guarantee or
guarantee insufficient to cover the
defects
 Contracts are not approved
 10% guarantee
High
- To read the contracts and identify the clauses for
guarantee
 Contract approved by responsible
construction in HQ
 Contracts signed by finco (fin
guide)
High
- To receive the document of approval. If there is no
document: interview resp. in mission and resp at HQ
- To read guide supply
- Interview resp. construction HQ, cotl and resp.
construction in the mission
- interview finco to know if red contracts before signature
- to receive list of signatories in mission
- Verification of the signatory of the contracts
- To read modification of contract and determine
approbation and signatories
- to identify changes done
MD56
SD56
D56
MD57
SD57
D57
MD32
SD32
D32
MD33
SD33
D33
MD34
SD34
D34
SD71
MD35
SD35
D35
MR25
SR33
FRAP26 R24
 Existence of a written contract –
method of filing
 Approval before signature
 Signature by authorized staff
 Contracts signed by non
authorized staff

 Management of the modifications
and additions
 Modification not approved by
authorized staff
 Modifications not signed by
authorized staff
 Modifications not revised by legal
adviser
 All element are included

High
 Elements to be present (audit
guide): responsibility for regulatory
paperwork, permits – right of audit
– behaviour on site (smoking,
drinking) – disposal of debris – no
recycled material allowed –
substitution clause only with written
approval – deposit requirements –
early terminations – dispute
resolution) + payment terms
High
- To read contract and determine approbation and check
which other elements are presents
MD37
SD37
D37
 Errors and defects
 Architect signs in the site book
(journal de chantier) with
comments
High
- To verify architect contract modalities
- Interview resp. construction: to define the controls the
architect should do
- To verify the existence of notes in the site notebook
MD38
SD38
D38
 Other needed element included
Follow-up of works
 Follow-up by the national
architect
 Finance staff not involve in
contract negotiation and
means of payment not
feasible, not legal
High
MD36
SD36
D36
Initial doc.
ref.
K3-Q33
FRAP24 R28
MR22
K3-Q34
MR23
FRAP25 R22
MR24
K3-Q35
K4-Q3
K7-Q3
K3-Q36
K4-Q4
K3-Q37
D08-002/B1-8
Control objectives
Risks
Expected controls
Follow-up of the works when MSF is
the constructor
 Follow-up of the workers
 Absences not justified => delays
 Attendance sheet
=> guide 96
 One head of team for each
profession
=> guide 96
 Follow-up of the works
Quality control
 Supervision of the contractor’s
work
 Verification of standards and rules
of construction
 Verification of client satisfaction
Accountancy
 Rules of posting for contacts
 Local posting rules are on line
with MSF standards
Payment
 The payment are done as
foreseen in contract
 The payment is approved
 Invoices correspond with works
performed
Closure of dossier
 Provisional acceptance done after
inspection
 Final acceptance
 Absence of close supervision
 Lack of knowledge of local quality
 Absence of supervision: work
delayed or low quality
 Quality of material not respected
Existing controls/ Apparent strong
points
Apparent weak points
 High turn-over of
expatriates supervising the
work with unequal
competencies
Materiality
Tests to perform
N° test
sheet
High
- To verify the means of control of the presence of the
workers
-
MD58
SD58
- Interview cotl, resp. construction: to determine modalities
of supervision of the contractor’s work
- Site visit
MD43
SD43
D43
Low
Recom. n°
FRAP n°
Initial doc.
ref.
K3-Q38
 MSF staff on site
 Weekly report of the work done,
number of workers and material
used (other org)
 MSF: monthly report
 Bureau of technical control (guide
extract MSF-F)
High
High
- Cotl and resp. constructor: to determine existing controls
MD59
SD59
D59
K3-Q40

High
- Interview cotl and log constructor for mechanism
- Interview comed, med focal point for degree of
satisfaction
MD60
SD60
D60
K3-Q41
K5-Q3
 Wrong financial books


High
- HQ Resp. management of the missions: to identify existing
posting rules and communication to the mission
 Wrong financial books
 Bad management of guarantees,
deductions, supplementary
payments

High
- Interview finco : to check rules applied and ascertain
respect of HQ standards
- Test on base of last contracts
MD39
SD39
D39
 Payment done when not foreseen
in contract
 Non-authorized payments
 Approbation of invoices before
payment

High
MD40
SD40
MD41
SD41
 Excessive payment
 On base of the monthly report
(less 10% guarantee)
High
- Finco :to verify payment done and ascertain that the
payment request follows contract
- Finco : to identify delegations of signature
- To verify that payments have been authorized
- To identify the verifications done by the one who
approved
- To identify the last invoices paid, and to check
completeness of invoice and ascertain that it corresponds
with the work performed
 Defects, works not completed
 Precision of the delay for
repairing
 Signature by MSF, contractor and
local health authorities
=> guide 96
 Signature by MSF, contractor and
local health authorities
=> guide 96
High
MD42
SD42
D42
High
- Resp. construction HQ and mission: to determine the
verifications done at the provisional acceptance
- Mission: to ascertain that verifications are done
- To receive the certificate of completion and analyse
signatories
- Resp. construction HQ and mission: to determine the
verifications done at the final acceptance
- Mission: to ascertain that verifications are done
- To receive the final certificate of completion and analyse
signatories
- Resp. construction HQ and mission : to determine the
documents that are received
- Mission: to check the existence of the documents (law
risk)
- Cotl + resp. construction mission: to determine the
insurances taken by MSF and legal obligations of partners
MD62
SD62
D62
 Damages appearing later
 High maintenance and repairing
cost
 Security risks
 Construction not adapted to the
need
=> inefficiency, repairing
 Defects appeared after the
provisional acceptance are not
corrected
 Completeness of the documents
 Missing documents
 Reception of the plans as-built
 Guarantees for the equipments
 Maintenance manuals
Insurances
 MSF is covered against major
liabilities
 Financial penalties in case of
damage
 Insurance “dommage ouvrage”
(extract guide MSF-France)
High
High
 Complexity of the subject
 No standard rule, no
recommendation
 Insurance “dommage
ouvrage” recommended
answer to French law
High
K3-Q39
SR34
K4-Q5
SR14 SR15
K4-Q6
MD41bis
SD41bis
MD44
SD44
D44
MR26
SR35
FRAP27 R25
K7-Q4
K3-Q42
K7-Q5
K7-Q43
FRAP28 R26
MD61
SD61
D61
K3-Q44
MR27
SR36 SR37
FRAP29 R27
K3-Q45
D08-002/B1-9
Control objectives
Risks
Expected controls
 The contractor is covered
 MSF is liable if insurance is not
taken by contractor
 Constructor can not assume loss if
not insured
 Existence of guarantees (audit
guide) where a third party is
engaged
 Existence of warranties (to
guarantee the quality of work done)
 Work not completed due to lack
of funds
4. Information and communication
Information to the technical
supervisor at the HQ
 Existence of regular reports
 Analysis and follow-up actions
Conservation and filing of the
documents
 File references
 Filing policy
Information between successive
resp. construction
 Hand-over documents
5. Monitoring
Supervision by the coordination
 Existence of a supervision
 Existence of a reporting
 Analysis and follow-up actions
 Visits of supervision
Supervision by the cell
 Existence of a supervision
Existing controls/ Apparent strong
points
Apparent weak points
Materiality
Tests to perform
 Audit guide : product liability –
employee dishonesty – commercial
vehicle – property – continued
operations – umbrella – completed
operations (after work done) –
builder’s risk coverage
 Audit guide: name of MSF on the
insurance contract so checks can be
endorsed
 In tender and contract:
specification that insurances have to
be taken
 Audit guide : promises specific
and in writing

High
- Resp. construction mission: to determine the checks done
by MSF and legal obligations of partners
N° test
sheet
See
MD62
See
SD62

High
- Resp. construction mission: to check which guarantees are
taken
See
MD34
K3-Q47
 Defects not corrected or against
payment
 High increased cost when period
are extended
 Audit guide :

High
- Resp. construction mission: existence of warranties?
See
MD34
SD72
D72
K3-Q48
 Absence of report does not
permit detection of problems
 Standard reporting format
 Report not read, no commented
 Absence of follow-up

High
 Projects not identified –
documents mixed, confusion in
payments

 Important documents are not
kept
 Organization and reference of
archives
 Loss of information => errors,
inefficiency
 End mission reports
 Check-list completed

 No supervision

 Reporting not adapted to needs
of readers
 Reporting not correct, incomplete
=> Non-detection and noncorrection of problems
 Report not read, no commented
 Absence of follow-up


Initial doc.
ref.
K3-Q46
SR32
FRAP30 R23
- Resp. construction HQ : to determine information needed,
reporting format requested
- To receive last reports for mission selected
- Resp. construction HQ : to determine actions taken when
reading reports
- To receive mail sent after reading for the mission visited
MD63
SD63
D63
MD64
SD64
K7-Q6
Medium
- Interview finco
K4-Q5
High
-Not done because recommendation previous audit not
implemented yet
See
MD39
See
SD39
See
MD56

High
- Log cell, resp. construction mission : to receive hand-over
document (+ check-list) and read it
MD65
SD65
D65


High
- Interview( HOM,) cotl : mechanisms of information and
supervision
K3-Q49



High
-(Hom) and cotl : interview to identify means of control and
reports used, adaptation of the reports
- To ascertain the accuracy of the reports, pertinence of the
information
MD66
SD66
D66
MD45
SD45
See D66


Low
 Absence of regular visits, too rare
to have a sufficient supervision
 Absence of report visit
 Redaction of visit reports

High
-(hom) and cotl: to determine actions taken when reading
reports
- To receive mail sent after reading
- cotl : to obtain the list of the last visits and the reports
MD67
SD67
D67
K3-Q51
 No supervision


MD68
SD68
D68
K1-Q1
K2-Q4

High
Recom. n°
FRAP n°
High
- Cell : interview CO and log to identify the level of
supervision / control done
K7-Q7
K3-Q50
D08-002/B1-10
Control objectives
Risks
Expected controls
 Existence of a reporting
 Reporting not adapted to needs
of readers
 Reporting not correct, incomplete
=> Non-detection and noncorrection of problems
 Report not read, not commented
 Absence of follow-up

 Answers, questions and regular
comments

Medium
 Absence of regular visits, too rare
to have a sufficient supervision
 Absence of report visit
 Redaction of visit reports

High
 No supervision
 Absence of regular visits, too rare
to have a sufficient supervision
 Absence of report visit

 Redaction of visit reports


 Analysis and follow-up actions
 Visits of supervision
Supervision du référent
constructions
 Existence of a supervision
 Visits of supervision
Existing controls/ Apparent strong
points

Apparent weak points
Materiality
Tests to perform

High
-Cell : interview CO and log to identify the reports received
and used, adaptation of the reports
- To obtain the last 2 reports
- To ascertain the accuracy of the reports, pertinence of the
information
Cell : interview CO and log cellule to determine actions
taken when reading reports
- To receive mail sent after reading
-CO and log cell: to obtain the list of the last visits and the
reports

Low
High
Out of Scope :
Best practices documents :
modalities of payment of invoices (cash check, ...)
modalities of purchase of goods (supply)
management of the staff (specially if work done by MSF)
safety of the staff (except if obvious abuse observed)
detailed technical points (lack of competence)
- respect of requirements of donors
- guide pour l’élaboration d’un projet de construction,
décembre 96, Philippe Pire (guide MSF)
- chapitre 8 sur les constructions d’un guide (Massis ?) de
MSF-F
- guideline check-list passation, décembre 99, département
logistique
- design for medical buildings, Housing Research and
Development Unit, university of Nairobi, 1988
-
-HQ technical referent: to obtain the list of lasts visits and
reports
N° test
sheet
MD46
SD46
D46
Recom. n°
FRAP n°
Initial doc.
ref.
K1-Q2
K2-Q5
MD69
SD69
D69
K1-Q3
K2-Q6
MD70
SD70
See D69
K7-Q8