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

Stage 1 Errors – Adjusted Budget Submissions Outstanding Submissions Per Vendor Number of Municipalities with Outstanding Adjustment Budget Submissions – 42

Stage 1 Errors – Project Details Adjusted Budget Submissions Outstanding Submissions Per Vendor Number of Municipalities with Outstanding Project Details Adjustment Budget Submissions – 94

Stage 1 Errors – Tabled Budget Submissions Outstanding Submissions Per Vendor Number of Municipalities with Outstanding Tabled Budget Submissions – 88

Stage 1 Errors – Project Details Tabled Budget Submissions Outstanding Submissions Per Vendor Number of Municipalities with Outstanding Project Details Tabled Budget Submissions – 94

  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 55 8 4 16 5 38 21 Phase 1 - Outstanding Submissions   Monthly 17% 9% 0% 11% 13% 25% 6% 20% 47% 33% ADJ 29% 4% 3% 40% 8% 38% PRAD 19% 100% 63% 42% 48% TABB 50% 22% 57% PRTA 52% 35% 14% 69% 60% 37% 67%

Percentage of Stage 1 - Outstanding Submissions % Municipalities/Vendor

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 55 8 4 16 5 38 21 Phase 1 - File Structure Errors Monthly 0% 17% 3% 13% 19% 20% 5% ADJ 8% 4% 6% PRAD 21% 26% TABB 11% 38% PRTA 10%

Percentage of Stage 1 – Structure Errors % Municipalities/Vendor

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 55 8 4 16 5 38 21 Phase 2 - Segment Errors Monthly 65% 57% 0% 31% 50% 25% 40% 13% 29% ADJ 63% 14% 100% 49% 11% 43% PRAD 2% 35% 75% 69% 20% 38% TABB 46% 17% 88% 8% PRTA 6% 21% 5%

Percentage of Stage 2 – Segment Errors % Municipalities/Vendor

Segment Correction Percentage Per Vendor Group Description 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% Camelsa 81,08% 51,35% 97,30% 75,68% 45,95% Fujitsu 100,00% J D Edwards Munsoft 18,18% 52,73% 45,45% 32,73% 7,27% OS Holdings Quill 25,00% 50,00% R-Data 56,25% 6,25% 68,75% 43,75% 81,25% SAP 20,00% 40,00% 60,00% Sebata 81,58% 5,26% 36,84% 34,21% 18,42% 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%

Number of Municipalities 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) 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

Projects Adjustments Budget - ERRORS

Projects Adjustments 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 26 Vendor 12 Vendor Manipulates/ Edit Data File Before Submission No Yes Yes 1 No 37 Vendor Corrects Segment Errors On Behalf OF Municipality 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 38 Data File Extracted and Uploaded Directly from System By Municipal Official WITHOUT Vendor Involvement Yes 11 No 27 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 9 No 29 Vendor Participates Manually in Producing A,B and C Schedules on behalf of Municipality Before Submission Vendor Opens GL Accounts for Subsequent Changes After Official Closing of Accounts and Submission of Schedules to Council Yes 5 No 33

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 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 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

  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 12 652 517 676 Variance (0) (346 074) Liabilities 4 517 151 011 (45 618) (107 699) (55 539) 20 244 44 769 11 684 41 421 48 588 (36 904) Expenditure 41 919 49 615 71 309 48 099 46 480 48 570 392 642 698 634 5 011 48 087 46 332 56 858 38 510 315 723 36 908 12 148 (8 289) 354 132 382 911 Revenue (245 623) (90 397) (113 906) (92 862) (94 479) (140 733) (104 071) (882 072) (245 619) (94 331) (149 022) (95 935) (4) (148) 8 289 (8 137) Total Variance (79)

Value Check – Compare Actual Expenditure to Budget

Thank you