Vendor Session Status Stage 1 and Stage 2 Errors
Presented by National Treasury 18 May 2018
Status – Stage 1 and Stage 2 Errors
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
Stage 1 – Outstanding Submissions
Financial Data:
Outstanding Monthly Submissions Data Type Muni’s
• Monthly MCUM - 45
• ADJ - 42
• PRAD - 94
• TABB - 88
• PRTA -126
Stage 1 – File Structure Errors
Financial Data:
File Structure Errors
Data Type Muni’s
• Monthly MCUM - 18
• ADJ - 15
• PRAD - 29
• TABB - 21
• PRTA - 16
Stage 2 – Segment Errors
Financial Data:
Segment Errors
Data Type Muni’s
• Monthly MCUM - 84
• ADJ - 88
• PRAD - 74
• TABB - 67
• PRTA - 47
Status – Outstanding Submissions Per Vendor
Stage 1 Errors – Monthly Submissions Outstanding Submissions Per Vendor
Number of Municipalities with Outstanding Monthly Submissions – 45
BCX; 8; 18%
BYT; 2; 4%
MST; 6; 13%
OSH; 1; 2%
BIQ; 1; 2%
RDT; 1; 2%
SAP; 1; 2%
SEB; 18; 40%
VES; 7; 16%
Data STRING- Outstanding Submissions
Monthly (M01 - M09 MCUM)
Stage 1 Errors – Adjusted Budget Submissions Outstanding Submissions Per Vendor
Number of Municipalities with Outstanding Adjustment Budget Submissions – 42
BCX; 14; 33%
BYT; 1; 2%
CAM; 1; 2%
MST; 11; 26%
BIQ; 1; 2%
RDT; 1; 2%
SAP; 2; 5%
SEB; 3; 7%
VES; 8; 19%
Data StRING - Outstanding Submissions
ADJUSTMENT BUDGET
Stage 1 Errors – Project Details Adjusted Budget Submissions
Outstanding Submissions Per Vendor
Number of Municipalities with Outstanding Project Details Adjustment Budget Submissions – 94
BCX; 19; 20%
BYT; 3; 3%
CAM; 7; 7%
JDE; 1; 1%
MST; 26; 28%
OSH; 5; 5%
BIQ; 1; 1%
RDT; 4; 4%
SAP; 2; 2%
SEB; 16; 17%
VES; 10; 11%
Data StRING- Outstanding Submissions
PROJECT DeTAILS - ADJUSTMENT BUDGET
Stage 1 Errors – Tabled Budget Submissions Outstanding Submissions Per Vendor
Number of Municipalities with Outstanding Tabled Budget Submissions – 88
BCX; 24; 27%
BYT; 4; 5%
CAM; 4; 5%
JDE; 1; 1%
MST; 12; 14%
OSH; 1; 1%
BIQ; 4; 5%
SAP; 2; 2%
SEB; 24; 27%
VES; 12; 14%
Data StRING- Outstanding Submissions
TABLED BUDGET
Stage 1 Errors – Project Details Tabled Budget Submissions
Outstanding Submissions Per Vendor
Number of Municipalities with Outstanding Project Details Tabled Budget Submissions – 94
BCX; 25; 20%
BYT; 8; 6%
CAM; 5; 4%
JDE; 1; 1%
MST; 38; 30%
OSH; 8; 6%
BIQ; 4; 3%
RDT; 6; 5%
SAP; 3; 2%
SEB; 14; 11%
VES; 14; 11%
Data StRING- Outstanding Submissions
PROJECT DeTAILS - TABLED BUDGET
Percentage of Outstanding Submissions/Errors per Number
of Municipalities per Vendor
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 48 23 37 1 1 55 8 4 16 5 38 21
Phase 1 - Outstanding Submissions
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%
Percentage of Stage 1 - Outstanding Submissions
% Municipalities/Vendor
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Stage 1 - % of Outstanding Submissions
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%
Percentage of Stage 1 – Structure Errors
% Municipalities/Vendor
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Stage 1 - % o Errors (Structure)
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 48 23 37 1 1 55 8 4 16 5 38 21
Phase 2 - Segment Errors
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%
Percentage of Stage 2 – Segment Errors
% Municipalities/Vendor
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Stage 2 - % of Segment Errors
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%
Common Segment Errors
Segment Error Type Number of Municipalities
Sum of Charges and Recoveries and Trial Balance Errors
(CO001 + CO002) 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
Projects Adjustments Budget - ERRORS
Projects Adjustments Budget - ERRORS
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Projects for Adjustment Budget - Errors
Vendor Responses to Process/System Questions
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 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
SomeNot Specified Many Municipalities do not use the system budget tool
Data / Value Check
GL and Data String Reconciliation
Stellenbosch Municipality Data String and GL Reconciliation
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan
M01 M02 M03 M04 M05 M06 M07 TOTAL
Assets Data String 199 187 (110 230) 88 214 152 393 103 540 71 921 (333 422) 171 602 GL 199 187 (110 230) 88 214 152 393 103 540 71 921 12 652 517 676 Variance 0 (0) 0 (0) (0) (0) (346 074) (346 074)
M01 M02 M03 M04 M05 M06 M07 TOTAL
Liabilities Data String 4 517 151 011 (45 618) (107 699) (55 539) 20 244 44 769 11 684 GL 41 421 151 011 (45 618) (107 699) (55 539) 20 244 44 769 48 588 Variance (36 904) (0) (0) 0 (0) (0) (0) (36 904)
Expenditure Data String 41 919 49 615 71 309 48 099 46 480 48 570 392 642 698 634
GL 5 011 49 615 71 309 48 087 46 332 56 858 38 510 315 723
Variance 36 908 0 0 12 148 (8 289) 354 132 382 911
Revenue Data String (245 623) (90 397) (113 906) (92 862) (94 479) (140 733) (104 071) (882 072)
Value Check – Compare Actual Expenditure to Budget
Province : WESTERN CAPE ( WC )
MCUM
BR ORGB Total Expenditure
m SCOA Total
Expenditure % Spent
Bergrivier WC013 328 673 177 258 101 855 79%
Cape Agulhas WC033 308 921 678 211 044 143 68%
Cape Winelands DM DC2 401 643 137 116 563 268 29%
Central Karoo DC5 71 778 470 50 609 830 71%
Eden DC4 342 764 281 103 382 660 30%
Hessequa WC042 435 400 044 275 197 232 63%
Knysna WC048 811 980 420 469 091 127 58%
Oudtshoorn WC045 663 069 000 415 394 083 63%
Overberg DC3 180 211 883 131 029 653 73%
Saldanha Bay WC014 1 039 703 906 715 993 744 69%
Swartland WC015 652 565 982 415 108 282 64%
Swellendam WC034 232 430 214 158 286 636 68%
THANK YOU
