Part 1: Summary

1.1.1 Planning of the “WiFi Go” program

The purposes and targets of the “WiFi Go” program set up by the former Bureau of Telecommunications Regulation (hereinafter referred to as DSRT according to Portuguese abbreviation) are generally high-level and conceptual without any particular direction or area, which is prone to install access points arbitrarily; and also it is difficult to define whether the targets of the program are achieved, easily having an illusion that the more access points installed, the more successful the program would be. In practice, many of those access points were selected without definite reasons. Although some venues were assessed as having a low public flow, they were allowed to install access points. In regard to this, the bureau only explained that other factors should be taken into account besides the public flow. Even so, the selection results of some service points are still hard to understand, for example, there are doubts about the rationality and effectiveness of setting service point in place that is particularly for listening to lecture or is used by specific members only.

1.1.2 Supervision of service

The former DSRT has two mechanisms to ensure service quality. One is the mechanism for monitoring quality and detecting problem, and the other is the mechanism for following up the problem that is discovered. However, the design of monitoring mechanism is imperfect and also the follow-up mechanism is inadequate, resulting in failure to ensure the service quality effectively.

According to the result of random inspection on 30 service points, CA found that the connection quality of nine service points were not ideal, and the overall pass rate of “connection service test” and “speed test” was 66.6%, while the pass rate for outdoor service points was only 48.6%. Up to March 2016, Macao SAR Government allocated 161 million patacas to the “WiFi Go” program. This poor connection quality is a waste of public fund, and also affects tourists’ experience of using the service and gives them a negative perception of Macao.

1.1.3 Installation of WiFi access points and settlement

In six of the eight procurements of service, the actual number of installed WiFi access points was fewer than the number required in the contracts, 25 access points were not installed but were still paid, involving 422,000.00 patacas. Even though the former DSRT requested to decrease the installation of access points, the whole payment had to be made since the procurement contracts only stated the total contract prices without the price adjustment clause, which was apparently unsuitable and unreasonable.

Moreover, as this situation was not mentioned in its settlement documents, the problem was existed in contracts over the years. In September 2016, for the first time, the former DSRT introduced the price adjustment clause in the new contract only after CA pointed out the problem. Despite the bureau expressed that there was other alternative work to partly replace those that were not executed, it is difficult to objectively assess the value of alternative work without valuation. Furthermore, the practice of replacing the work stipulated in contract with other work without written approval obviously violated the legal requirement.

1.2 Audit suggestions

The bureau should:

conduct an in-depth study to precisely define the actual role of the “WiFi Go” program and its intended purposes in the overall interests of Macao;

formulate a mechanism to ensure the service point will bring significant economic benefits and be in line with the principle of prudent use of public fund;

establish a perfect mechanism for monitoring service quality and detecting problem through regulating the supervisory mechanism set up by the service operator and implementing its own supervisory mechanism. Meanwhile, an effective follow-up mechanism for the problem detected should be established in order to tackle the problem effectively;

have detail specifications of services and the calculation of contract price in the contract, and avoid stipulating a fixed price, especially under uncertain circumstances, to ensure that the amount of payment would be depended on the quantity of services provided by the contractor;

clearly reflect whether the quantity of goods or services rendered is in accordance with the contract requirements of the settlement document, and also specify the calculation basis for the price and the terms of contract;

If there is difference between the goods or services provided by the contractor and the contract requirements, the bureau should obtain the approval of authority before substituting those goods or services for another, in order to solve the problem suitably and legally under the current law on expenditure, and should keep a detailed record of this situation.