The Commission of Audit (CA) conducted a special audit on the main activities of Macao Science Centre Limited (Company) and how they were managed, in order to detect whether serious problems existed and, consequently, to present audit opinions and suggestions for improvement.

1.1 Audit findings and opinions

1.1.1 Evaluation of the bids for designing and setting up exhibition rooms and contract awarding

1.1.1.1 Scoring criteria laid down in the tenders’ documents and their amendment

To protect its own interests, the Company altered the scoring criteria laid down in the tenders’ documents for designing and setting up exhibition rooms, by adding qualitative criteria such as effective experience and work capability of the bidders. This action changed the criteria by which the bids should be assessed — those stated in the tenders’ documents — and would draw the Company into unnecessary controversies with the bidders.

1.1.1.2 Scoring criteria

The Company came to the conclusion that the scoring criteria laid down in the tenders’ documents were not capable enough to gauge the capabilities and other characteristics expected from the bidders, but didn’t examine the core of the problem. Consequently, the real problem was not thoroughly resolved, which, then, affected the credibility of the scores and, in turn, the awards themselves.

1.1.1.3 Differences in the scoring

The two permanent members of the evaluation committee, with large experience in setting up or managing science centres, hold very different technical understanding of the main evaluation factor, which lead to a permanent bipolarization of the scores awarded between them. This bipolarization weakens the credibility of the scores and compromises the quality of the contracts awards.

1.1.1.4 Verifying and reporting the scores

The procedure applied by the Company to assess the bids for designing and setting up exhibition rooms didn’t provide steps able to detect any atypical scores, errors and omissions. Also, the scoring sheets didn’t record the causes and calculations that lead to the eventual scores, so it’s impossible to conduct any procedural revision to identify the any errors probably committed, knowing their causes and reporting accordingly to the board of directors.

1.1.2 Mission and performance assessment mechanism

1.1.2.1 Setting of Company’s mission

The mission presented and explained by the managing bodies of the Company has yet to be approved by the statutory competent body, therefore it’s not yet binding. The situation may cause wrong allocation or even wastage of resources due to less correct interpretation of the mission, or due to its amendments which would be easily introduced.

1.1.2.2 Mechanism to assess performance

The Company has no mechanism to assess whether the set targets have been achieved. This situation must end as early as possible, since without that mechanism both the shareholders and the directors will have difficulties in assessing the Company’s performance. In effect, they won’t have any indicators to measure the results or to review policies, methodologies or objectives.

1.1.3 Procedures to monitor safety issues

1.1.3.1 Provisory measures to prevent recurrence of accidents

It has been verified that while exhibits which caused accidents were under reparations, the Company didn’t implement any provisory measures to prevent further occurrences with the same exhibits.

1.1.3.2 Procedures for similar safety problems

The follow up procedures on accidents don’t provide written rules that make mandatory the examination of other exhibits and situations which could pose safety problems similar to those of an occurred accident. This situation constitutes a risk of oversight.

1.1.3.3 Handling of complains related to safety issues

The complains service only provides rules for answering to information requests; it doesn’t provide procedures on forwarding cases related to safety to the competent depart¬ments for thorough examination e immediate follow up. The situation may allow latent dangers turning real accidents.

1.2 Audit suggestions

1.2.1 Rules and criteria laid down in the tenders’ documents are part of the agreement between the bidder and the Company. This considering, whenever it’s necessary amending some norms or criteria, the Company should proceed adequately and properly in order to avoid any potential controversy with the bidders;

1.2.2 The bids evaluation process should be able to adequately assess the characteristics expected from the bidders. Whenever shortcomings are detected during the running of the process, the examination carried out should go to the origin of the problem and also assessing its level of impact, so that right solutions could be found.

1.2.3 The evaluation process should ensure that all members of the evaluation committee have a homogeneous understanding of the scoring criteria. In order to certify that all members of the committee assess the bids according to the laid down criteria and to avoid any errors, the evaluation process should be sufficiently documented. This also permits carrying out internal reviews.

1.2.4 Whenever there are serious technical divergences around any evaluation factor, which denotes the criteria and the methodology of scoring are not the most suitable to the case, the Company must face the problem and solve it adequately and properly.

1.2.5 The Company’s mission should be instituted through formal procedures and should also be proper and long-lasting.

1.2.6 Medium and long-term plans should be established for fulfilling the mission; the plans should include policies, goals and specific methodologies.

1.2.7 The Company should set up a mechanism to evaluate its performance and, as far as possible, quantify the goals referred in the suggestion above, turning them into key performance indicators to periodically assess its works and to introduce adjustments, when needed.

1.2.8 Whenever an accident occurs, the Company should solve it immediately or take adequate provisory measures to prevent new accidents while repair works are under way.

1.2.9 The procedures with safety issues should broaden the scope to cover items and situations similar to those involved in accidents.

1.2.10 The Company should adopt an appropriate mechanism to promptly handle all complains.