Mid-term budget monitoring and modification request

Formulas: burn rate =D2/C2; final forecast =D2+E2; variance =F2-C2; variance % =G2/C2; heading total =SUMIF(A:A,"2.*",C:C) or subtotals.

Lines with a variance: 1.2: 61,200, -3,600 (-5.6%); 2.2: 101.2% spent, 37,950, +450 (+1.2%); 2.3: 93.0% spent, 78,000, +18,000 (+30.0%); 2.4: 7,000, -2,000 (-22.2%); 3.1: 36,000, -7,200 (-16.7%); 3.2: 110.0% spent, 20,640, +6,240 (+43.3%); 4.2: 0, -12,000 (-100%). The other lines end on budget.

At month 12 (66.7% of the time elapsed), 64.7% has been spent: EUR 205,060 remains, i.e. EUR 34,177 per month against an average of 31,270 so far. The cash transfers (EUR 105,000 remaining) must be planned now.

The 15% rule applies to the heading, not to the line: the overruns on lines 2.3 (+30%) and 3.2 (+43%) are not a problem in themselves, as headings 2 (+5.0%) and 3 (-1.2%) remain below 15%.

Amendment required for three reasons: (1) heading 4 decreases by 42.9%, beyond 15%; (2) the external final evaluation is a contractual activity: an email from the programme officer is not enough, a signed modification is needed; (3) the 3 additional water points change the target (10 to 13 points). Without a signed amendment, the expenditure on the 3 water points cannot be committed, and the request must reach the donor at least 30 days before the planned commitment.

Without approval: savings on personnel, vehicles and training, and the overrun on fuel, since their headings remain within the margin.

Indirect costs: 7% of the direct costs actually incurred: 7% × 580,190 = EUR 40,613.30 against 40,621 budgeted. The total remains within the envelope; if the water points were not approved, direct costs and therefore indirect costs would decrease.

Subject: Mopti WASH and cash transfer project, request for a no-cost budget amendment.

"Dear Madam, following the arrival of displaced families in August, the WASH cluster has asked us to rehabilitate three additional water points. We request a no-cost amendment, covering: 1) the target of the indicator "water points rehabilitated", from 10 to 13; 2) line 2.3, from EUR 60,000 to 78,000 (+18,000); 3) the removal of line 4.2 "external final evaluation" (EUR 12,000), in line with your message indicating that you will carry out a multi-project evaluation; we would be grateful if you could confirm this in the amendment. The funding comes from this line and from savings on personnel (EUR 3,600, vacant position), vehicles (EUR 7,200, a single vehicle from month 13) and training (EUR 2,000). These savings also cover the increase in fuel (+EUR 6,240) and a slight overrun on the kits (+EUR 450, exchange rate). Total forecast direct costs are EUR 580,190 for a budget of EUR 580,300. The monitoring and evaluation heading decreases by 42.9%, which exceeds the 15% threshold of article 9. Works would start in month 14; we would be grateful for a reply before [date 30 days ahead]. The revised budget and the cluster's note are attached."

I refuse: an expense is only eligible if it is incurred for this project and supported by evidence; charging the fuel of another project is a false allocation, which can be treated as fraud and lead to the repayment of the expense, or even of other project expenses. The savings on this project belong to this project and their reallocation follows article 9. I propose: if vehicles are genuinely shared, a documented allocation key (kilometres per project, logbooks) applied to all; otherwise a reallocation within his own project's budget or a request to the donor concerned. I inform the finance manager if the request is maintained.