3.2  Government Data Centre (GIDC) Project  3.3  Procurement Policy Not Aligned with Board Resolutions The auditors noted that stage 3 (Design stage) of the Government Data Centre (GIDC) project was ongoing with a  total expenditure on the project during the year of P4 083 786.32, incurred towards the designs. As the project  manager, Botswana Innovation Hub (BIH) was to earn a management fee of 10% of expected fees as per the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). On the basis of the MOA  with the Ministry of Transport and Communications, additional  fees at the end of stage 3 should have been approximately P2 690 607 which was yet to be recognized. Depending on the  stage of completion within stage 3, part of this fee needed to  have been accrued to the extent of work done in 2017/18 and  recognized as revenue. The auditors further noted that the  receivable balance from 2016/2017 financial year of P841 761 on  the project was yet to be settled. The discounting effect on P841 761 was not adjusted as it was assessed to be not significant. Based on further reviews and discussion with management, the  auditors were informed that a challenge was faced on execution of the current design stage, as the designs that had  been drawn were not coherent with the assigned plot in Palapye. In line with International Financial Reporting Standard  15, revenue recognition should only be upon fulfilling agreed  upon performance obligations, which had not been met, hence  it was appropriate not to accrue any management fee.  In response Management stated that they continued to engage  with the Ministry of Transport and Communications who had  requested all outstanding invoices due which included BIH unpaid invoices of the two (2) amounts. Management further  stated that the Deputy Permanent Secretary for ICT at MTC had  assured BIH that they would resolve all issues for GIDC by  November 2018.  The auditors noted on review that the procurement policy was  still under review, pending approval as reported in the prior year. The policy approved in 2015/2016 along with the Board resolution  passed on 10 May 2016 were currently applicable. On review of  expenses against the procurement policy together with Board  recommendations, the auditors noted instances where approval  of expenditure was not by the personnel as prescribed by policy,  but by personnel at the same hierarchy levels. 130 