Vendor Session Errors Overview
This report provides a detailed analysis of stage 1 and stage 2 errors presented by the National Treasury, including outstanding submissions, financial data, file structure errors, and segment errors. It also highlights the status of outstanding submissions per vendor and the number of municipalities affected by these errors.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Vendor Session Status Stage 1 and Stage 2 Errors Presented by National Treasury 18 May 2018 1
Stage 1 Outstanding Submissions Overview of Outstanding Submissions Status of Outstanding Submissions per Vendor Percentage of Submissions/Errors per Number of Municipalities Vendor Vendor Responses to Questions/Challenges Data / Value Check 3 3
Stage 1 Outstanding Submissions Financial Data: Outstanding Monthly Submissions Data Type Muni s Monthly MCUM - 45 ADJ - 42 PRAD - 94 TABB PRTA - 88 -126 4 4
Stage 1 File Structure Errors Financial Data: File Structure Errors Data Type Muni s Monthly MCUM - 18 ADJ - 15 PRAD - 29 TABB PRTA - 21 - 16 5 5
Stage 2 Segment Errors Financial Data: Segment Errors Data Type Muni s Monthly MCUM - 84 ADJ - 88 PRAD - 74 TABB PRTA - 67 - 47 6 6
Status Outstanding Submissions Per Vendor 7 7
Stage 1 Errors Monthly Submissions Outstanding Submissions Per Vendor Number of Municipalities with Outstanding Monthly Submissions 45 DATA STRING- OUTSTANDING SUBMISSIONS MONTHLY (M01 - M09 MCUM) VES, 7, 16% BCX, 8, 18% BYT, 2, 5% CAM, 0, 0% FUJ, 0, 0% JDE, 0, 0% MST, 6, 13% OSH, 1, 2% SEB, 18, 40% BIQ, 1, 2% RDT, 1, 2% SAP, 1, 2% 8 8
Stage 1 Errors Adjusted Budget Submissions Outstanding Submissions Per Vendor Number of Municipalities with Outstanding Adjustment Budget Submissions 42 DATA STRING - OUTSTANDING SUBMISSIONS ADJUSTMENT BUDGET VES, 8, 19% BCX, 14, 33% SEB, 3, 7% SAP, 2, 5% BYT, 1, 3% RDT, 1, 2% BIQ, 1, 2% CAM, 1, 3% OSH, 0, 0% FUJ, 0, 0% JDE, 0, 0% MST, 11, 26% 9 9
Stage 1 Errors Project Details Adjusted Budget Submissions Outstanding Submissions Per Vendor Number of Municipalities with Outstanding Project Details Adjustment Budget Submissions 94 DATA STRING- OUTSTANDING SUBMISSIONS PROJECT DETAILS - ADJUSTMENT BUDGET VES, 10, 11% BCX, 19, 20% SEB, 16, 17% BYT, 3, 3% CAM, 7, 8% SAP, 2, 2% FUJ, 0, 0% RDT, 4, 4% BIQ, 1, 1% JDE, 1, 1% OSH, 5, 5% MST, 26, 28% 10 10
Stage 1 Errors Tabled Budget Submissions Outstanding Submissions Per Vendor Number of Municipalities with Outstanding Tabled Budget Submissions 88 DATA STRING- OUTSTANDING SUBMISSIONS TABLED BUDGET VES, 12, 14% BCX, 24, 27% SEB, 24, 27% BYT, 4, 4% CAM, 4, 5% FUJ, 0, 0% SAP, 2, 2% JDE, 1, 1% RDT, 0, 0% MST, 12, 14% OSH, 1, 1% BIQ, 4, 5% 11 11
Stage 1 Errors Project Details Tabled Budget Submissions Outstanding Submissions Per Vendor Number of Municipalities with Outstanding Project Details Tabled Budget Submissions 94 DATA STRING- OUTSTANDING SUBMISSIONS PROJECT DETAILS - TABLED BUDGET VES, 14, 11% BCX, 25, 20% SEB, 14, 11% BYT, 8, 6% SAP, 3, 3% RDT, 6, 5% CAM, 5, 4% FUJ, 0, 0% BIQ, 4, 3% JDE, 1, 1% OSH, 8, 6% MST, 38, 30% 12 12
Percentage of Outstanding Submissions/Errors per Number of Municipalities per Vendor 13 13
Percentage of Stage 1 - Outstanding Submissions % Municipalities/Vendor Vendors BCX BYT CAM FUJ JDE MST OSH BIQ RDT SAP SEB VES Number of Municipalities Per Vendor Phase 1 - Outstanding Submissions 48 23 37 1 1 55 8 4 16 5 38 21 Monthly 17% 9% 0% 0% 0% 11% 13% 25% 6% 20% 47% 33% ADJ 29% 4% 3% 0% 0% 20% 0% 25% 6% 40% 8% 38% PRAD 40% 13% 19% 0% 100% 47% 63% 25% 25% 40% 42% 48% TABB 50% 17% 11% 0% 100% 22% 13% 100% 0% 40% 63% 57% PRTA 52% 35% 14% 0% 100% 69% 100% 100% 38% 60% 37% 67% 14 14
Percentage of Stage 1 - Outstanding Submissions % Municipalities/Vendor Stage 1 - % of Outstanding Submissions 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% BCX BYT CAM MST OSH BIQ RDT SEB VES Monthly ADJ PRAD TABB PRTA 15 15
Percentage of Stage 1 Structure Errors % Municipalities/Vendor Vendors BCX BYT CAM FUJ JDE MST OSH BIQ RDT SAP SEB VES Number of Municipalities Per Vendor 48 23 37 1 1 55 8 4 16 5 38 21 Phase 1 - File Structure Errors Monthly 0% 17% 3% 0% 0% 13% 0% 0% 19% 20% 5% 0% ADJ 8% 4% 3% 0% 0% 13% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 5% PRAD 21% 26% 19% 0% 0% 5% 13% 0% 0% 0% 3% 5% TABB 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 6% 20% 11% 38% PRTA 0% 26% 3% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 13% 20% 5% 10% 16 16
Percentage of Stage 1 Structure Errors % Municipalities/Vendor Stage 1 - % o Errors (Structure) 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% BCX BYT CAM MST OSH BIQ RDT SEB VES Monthly ADJ PRAD TABB PRTA 17 17
Percentage of Stage 2 Segment Errors % Municipalities/Vendor Vendors BCX BYT CAM FUJ JDE MST OSH BIQ RDT SAP SEB VES Number of Municipalities Per Vendor Phase 2 - Segment Errors 48 23 37 1 1 55 8 4 16 5 38 21 Monthly 65% 57% 0% 0% 0% 31% 50% 25% 31% 40% 13% 29% ADJ 63% 13% 14% 0% 100% 49% 0% 50% 31% 40% 11% 43% PRAD 2% 35% 11% 100% 0% 29% 25% 75% 69% 20% 50% 38% TABB 46% 17% 14% 0% 0% 40% 88% 0% 13% 40% 8% 0% PRTA 6% 17% 38% 100% 0% 20% 0% 0% 31% 0% 21% 5% 18 18
Percentage of Stage 2 Segment Errors % Municipalities/Vendor Stage 2 - % of Segment Errors 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% BCX BYT CAM MST OSH BIQ RDT SEB VES Monthly ADJ PRAD TABB PRTA 19 19
Segment Correction Percentage Per Vendor Group Description Segment Correct % Segment Correct % Segment Correct % Segment Correct % Segment Correct % Segment Correct % ADJB PRAD M09 MCUM TABB PRTA Business Connexion ,00% 37,50% 29,17% 18,75% 4,17% 41,67% Bytes 78,26% 26,09% 21,74% 17,39% 47,83% 21,74% Camelsa 81,08% 51,35% 97,30% 97,30% 75,68% 45,95% Fujitsu 100,00% ,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% ,00% J D Edwards ,00% ,00% 100,00% 100,00% ,00% ,00% Munsoft 18,18% 18,18% 52,73% 45,45% 32,73% 7,27% OS Holdings 100,00% ,00% 37,50% 37,50% ,00% ,00% Quill 25,00% ,00% 50,00% 50,00% ,00% ,00% R-Data 56,25% 6,25% 68,75% 43,75% 81,25% 18,75% SAP 20,00% 40,00% 60,00% 20,00% ,00% 20,00% Sebata 81,58% 5,26% 36,84% 34,21% 18,42% 36,84% Vesta 14,29% 9,52% 52,38% 38,10% 4,76% 19,05% Total 43,58% 23,35% 50,58% 42,80% 31,52% 26,46% 20 20
Common Segment Errors Segment Error Type Sum of Charges and Recoveries and Trial Balance Errors (CO001 + CO002) Number of Municipalities 42 Capital projects can only have Item Assets or Payables and Accruals and Retentions (PC only against IA and IL001006011 and IL001006006 is valid) 17 Operation projects not valid against acquisitions or additions (PO not valid against IA002 level acquisitions or additions) 12 Oper Proj: Cost of Free Basic Services and Revenue Cost of Free Services and Property Rebates can only have Item Revenue or certain Item Assets (PO003057 PO003058 PO003059 only against IR or IA001010 OR IA001004 is valid) 15 Default projects may NOT have Item Expenditure and Assets except for current assets and default items (PD not valid against IE or IA except IA001 OR IE018) 36 Remuneration of Councillors not against Mayor and Council (IE008 not against FX004) 4 Bulk purchase electricity not against Electricity IE002001 not against FX002001001 or FX002002001) 10 Bulk purchases water not against Water (IE002002 not against FX016001002 or FX016002002) 9 Inventory consumed:Water not against Water (IE007004 not against FX016001002 or FX016002002) 9 Default not valid (RX001 not valid) 24 Default Costing and default Expenditure not valid (CO003 and IE018 not valid) 7 Default Costing and default Revenue not valid (CO003 and IR004 not valid) 8 21 21
Projects Adjustments Budget - ERRORS Projects for Adjustment Budget - Errors 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 BCX BYT CAM FUJ JDE MST OSH BIQ RDT SAP SEB VES No of projects without IDP data No of IDP lines without Financial data 23 23
Vendor Responses to Process/System Questions 24 24
Vendor Responses to Function/Process Questions Vendor Questions BCX BYT CAM MST BIQ RDT SAP SEB VES Data String Uploaded by Vendor OR Municipality Municipality Municipality Municipality Municipality Municipality Municipality Municipality Municipality 26 Vendor 12 Municipality Vendor Manipulates/ Edit Data File Before Submission No No No No No No Yes Yes 1 No 37 No Vendor Corrects Segment Errors On Behalf OF Municipality No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes 32 No 6 Vendor assists clients to take corrective action on validation issues arising from new votes created where needs raised Does General Ledger for Assets, Liabilities, Expenditure, Revenue, Gains and Losses RECONCILE to summary of Data String Accumulated M01 to M09 [Proof may be requested] If this question is referring to the Trail Balance and the data validation is amended then YES Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 38 Yes Data File Extracted and Uploaded Directly from System By Municipal Official WITHOUT Vendor Involvement Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 11 No 27 Yes Name of Municipal Official That Did Latest Submission Directly from System without Vendor Involvement BCX do not know the name of the municipal official (probably the person that is registered at NT for this purposes) that is responsible for any kind of submission to NT. Refer to Colum E, F, G, I and L - Jean Marais Michael Banton Not done yet Name is on the user password and file upload log. Unknown to vendor A,B and C Schedules Drawn Directly From the Financial System By the Municipality BCX do not know if Municipalities is using the functionality available on the system if they do then YES Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes 9 No 29 Yes Vendor Participates Manually in Producing A,B and C Schedules on behalf of Municipality Before Submission No No Yes No No Yes No Yes 1 No 37 No Vendor Opens GL Accounts for Subsequent Changes After Official Closing of Accounts and Submission of Schedules to Council No No No No No No No Yes 5 No 33 No 25 25
Vendor Responses to System/Municipal Challenges Vendor Questions BCX BYT CAM FUJ JDE MST BIQ RDT SAP - Msunduzi SEB VES System Challenges None. Release 6.2 installed and rollout to all Municipalities. Non financial data string for debtors and creditors will be rolled out to Municipalities as from 20 May 2018. All functionality available on the system No Comment None No response from municipality Late release due to V6.2 in February 2018. Timeframes for the submission of budget, unforeseen changes made by councils. Accounts to be split for CHARGES and RECOVERIES. Application of the correct FUND segments for postings that occur via the bank statement. The use of the GR/IR account for goods receipts, service receipts, and invoice posting on capital projects. The NT portal validations does not allow this, but it is the standard method by which SAP operates for these postings. Mostly No No Specified None Municipal Challenges In general (and also conveyed in previous meetings and mails) a lack of commitment, skill levels, recourse (money and people), etc. etc. etc. Capacity No Comment General SCOA adoption, user challenges Data Readiness - proper data readiness. The purification of data will take at least another 12 months as we go through to the learning curve. Availability of resources for workshops and meetings. Decision making and partnering on key issue Some Not Specified Many Municipalities do not use the system budget tool 26 26
Data / Value Check 27 27
GL and Data String Reconciliation Stellenbosch Municipality Data String and GL Reconciliation Jul M01 Aug M02 Sep M03 Oct M04 Nov M05 Dec M06 Jan M07 TOTAL Data String GL Variance 199 187 199 187 (110 230) (110 230) 88 214 88 214 152 393 152 393 103 540 103 540 71 921 71 921 (333 422) 12 652 (346 074) Assets 171 602 517 676 (346 074) 0 (0) 0 (0) (0) (0) M01 M02 M03 M04 M05 M06 M07 TOTAL Data String GL Variance 4 517 41 421 (36 904) 151 011 151 011 (45 618) (45 618) (107 699) (107 699) (55 539) (55 539) 20 244 20 244 44 769 44 769 Liabilities 11 684 48 588 (36 904) (0) (0) 0 (0) (0) (0) Data String GL Variance 41 919 5 011 36 908 49 615 49 615 71 309 71 309 48 099 48 087 12 46 480 46 332 148 48 570 56 858 (8 289) 392 642 38 510 354 132 Expenditure 698 634 315 723 382 911 0 0 Data String GL Variance (245 623) (245 619) (90 397) (90 397) (113 906) (113 906) (92 862) (92 862) (94 479) (94 331) (148) (140 733) (149 022) 8 289 (104 071) (95 935) (8 137) Revenue (882 072) (882 072) (4) 0 (0) (0) (0) Total Variance (0) 0 0 12 0 0 (79) 28 28
Value Check Compare Actual Expenditure to Budget Province : WESTERN CAPE ( WC ) BR ORGB Total Expenditure 328 673 177 308 921 678 401 643 137 71 778 470 342 764 281 435 400 044 811 980 420 663 069 000 180 211 883 1 039 703 906 652 565 982 232 430 214 mSCOA Total Expenditure 258 101 855 211 044 143 116 563 268 50 609 830 103 382 660 275 197 232 469 091 127 415 394 083 131 029 653 715 993 744 415 108 282 158 286 636 MCUM % Spent WC013 WC033 DC2 DC5 DC4 WC042 WC048 WC045 DC3 WC014 WC015 WC034 79% 68% 29% 71% 30% 63% 58% 63% 73% 69% 64% 68% Bergrivier Cape Agulhas Cape Winelands DM Central Karoo Eden Hessequa Knysna Oudtshoorn Overberg Saldanha Bay Swartland Swellendam 29 29
