6.2 Programmes, budgets, orders and spend
PAG assists TS and the OCs throughout the year, to monitor and report on the inter-relationship of budgets, orders and spend. How this fits into the overall process is shown in figure 68 below:
A comparison of spend against budgets for the years 2007/08 and 2006/07 is shown at figure 69.
|
Budget variances Both SE and NW delivered an underspend against budget. These were partly offset by overspends in NE and SW. The cumulative level of underspend at £2.7m (1.6%) across all Units was not material. |
Expenditure Profiles
Expenditure profiles are an important tool for managing finances. As in previous years, PAG’s monitoring of this area within the OCs’ CCMS has shown continuing scope for improvement in the operation this control.
NE - BEAR
BEAR’s performance has been slightly above average in spending its budget for 2007/08. This Unit’s spend was in line
with its budget, with a nominal overspend of £0.1m.
PAG has raised concern over the accuracy of the OC’s expenditure profiles. PAG will continue to monitor OC performance in this area.
SE - BEAR
OC performance in spending its budget was poor, with the Unit reporting an underspend of £2.5m. This outturn may in part be due to start up issues following contract commencement in April 2007.
NW – Scotland Transerv
NW reported a net underspend of £1.3m. This was attributable to minor improvements partially off-set by an overspend against routine and cyclic maintenance work.
The accuracy of expenditure profiles for the NW was mixed. The profiles initially anticipated a high level of spend in the first half of the year. However, this did not materialise, with actual spend being at a lower level. PAG will monitor the OC’s performance in this area.
SW – AMEY
Amey’s performance throughout the year has been above average in delivering its budget. There was an overspend of £1m (2%) attributable to structures and structural maintenance.
