This assurance report is prepared for Jimma University Kitto Furdissa (Laboratory & Workshop) Building Project based on the memorandum of understanding signed between Jimma University, the Procuring Entity (PE), and CoST  Ethiopia. The assurance process is designed to have the dual function of first giving assurance that the information disclosed by PEs is valid and complete, and second of interpreting the disclosed information in plain language to detect matters of interest or potential concern that could be raised with the project owner. This enhanced accountability is expected to result in improved efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of infrastructure construction.
This assurance report is, however, prepared for project and contract information collected by the assurance professional and not by the procuring entity, so the validation of completeness and accuracy of disclosure is not covered by this report. The main purpose of this report is, therefore, to disclose information items collected by the assurance professional and to highlight identified areas of inefficiency, mismanagement and other causes of concern throughout the project cycle. The report further provides recommendation to the Multi Stakeholder Group Executive Committee (MSGEC) on key findings of the assurance process.

In particular, this report highlighted that Jimma University  awarded both the design and supervision contract to the Construction Design Share Company without competition, which is against the conditions stipulated in the Public Procurement Directive, 2005, Article 9. Two out of four bidders declined to submit tender proposal, which calls for the PE to assess the situation and attract more number of bidders. Moreover, the tender evaluation criteria didn’t define the necessary requirements such as manpower and equipment that are essential for successful completion of the project nor was there any pre-tender estimate of the project that should have been done during procurement planning. Poor practice of contract administration was observed, including failure to allocate a reasonable period of time for completing the construction work which was delayed beyond the construction date, failure to provide advice to the client on his contractual right and actions required to be taken, or granting contractually acceptable extensions of time.