Item 7 c Final Audit Report Bridges Asset Management
Argyll and Bute Council · 12 June 2025
Back to Audit and Scrutiny Committee — 12 June 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Argyll and Bute Council Internal Audit Report March 2025 Final High Medium Low VFM Number of Findings 1 1 2 0 Bridge Asset Management Plan Audit Opinion: Reasonable
Page 2
2 Argyll and Bute Council – Internal Audit Report – Bridge Asset Management, March 2025 Contents 1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Scope ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Key Dates ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Risks ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 Audit Opinion ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................. 5 2. Objectives and Summary Assessment ........................................................................................... 5 3. Detailed Findings ............................................................................................................................ 7 Appendix 1 – Action Plan ..................................................................................................................... 11 Appendix 2 – Audit Opinion ................................................................................................................. 15 Contact Details Internal Auditor: David Sullivan Telephone: 01546 604125 e-mail: david.sullivan@argyll-bute.gov.uk www.argyll-bute.gov.uk
Page 3
3 Argyll and Bute Council – Internal Audit Report – Bridge Asset Management, March 2025 1. Executive Summary Introduction 1. As part of the 2024/25 internal audit plan, approved by the Audit & Scrutiny Committee in March 2024, we have undertaken an audit of Argyll and Bute Council’s (the Council / ABC) system of internal control and governance in relation to Bridge Asset Management Plan. 2. The audit was conducted in accordance with the Public Sector Internal Audit Standards (PSIAS) with our conclusions based on discussions with council officers and the information available at the time the fieldwork was performed. The findings outlined in this report are only those which have come to our attention during the course of our normal audit work and are not necessarily all the issues which may exist. Appendix 1 to this report includes agreed actions to strengthen internal control however it is the responsibility of management to determine the extent of the internal control system appropriate to the Council. 3. The contents of this report have been agreed with the appropriate council officers to confirm factual accuracy and appreciation is due for the cooperation and assistance received from all officers over the course of the audit. Background 4. The Infrastructure Design team is responsible for the oversight of 903 bridges within Argyll and Bute Council. The Infrastructure Design team’s approach is to follow the 'Well-managed Highway Infrastructure' Code of Practice and the Standards for Highways/Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) CS 450 - Inspection of Highway Structures. 5. These national Codes of Practice and Standards categorise bridge inspections into three types: General Inspections, Principal Inspections, and Special Inspections and set out the frequency of inspections that should be undertaken. General Inspections should be conducted every 24 months, encompassing visual assessments from ground level without additional access equipment. Principal Inspections are more comprehensive, requiring close examinations within touching distance of all accessible parts of a structure, and are recommended every 72 months. Special Inspections are performed as needed to address specific concerns raised by various stakeholders. 6. The Infrastructure Design team recently transitioned the structures' asset management system to the cloud-based WebSMS platform by WDM, replacing the previous server-based version of the WDM system maintained by Argyll and Bute Council. This system migration aimed to enhance the accessibility of bridge inventory data. Inventory validation is being integrated into WebSMS through tablet input by Bridge Inspectors or manually via desktop entries. Additionally, ad-hoc validation is performed by Bridge Inspectors and Engineers as required. 7. This audit will aim to provide an analysis of the data integrity within the WebSMS system and evaluate the effectiveness and compliance of the cyclic bridge inspection process with the national Code of Practice and Standards.
Page 4
4 Argyll and Bute Council – Internal Audit Report – Bridge Asset Management, March 2025 Scope 8. The scope of the audit was to review the data held in the bridges asset management system together with a review of the cyclic bridge inspection process as outlined in the Terms of Reference agreed with the Head of Roads and Infrastructure Services on July 24th 2024. Key Dates 9. The Terms of Reference provided provisional timescales for the review to take place, the actual dates are noted below. Exhibit 1 – Key Dates Stage Actual Date Terms of Reference agreed 24th July 2024 Fieldwork Commencement 24th July 2024 Draft Report issued (Information required for the review was delayed) 25th November 2024 Management Comments received 17th March 2025 Final Report issued 19th March 2025 Audit and Scrutiny Committee 12th June 2025 Risks 10. The risks considered throughout the audit were: SRR02: Infrastructure and Asset Base does not meet future requirements Audit Risk 1: There are no procedures in place for Bridge inspections Audit Risk 2: Information within the Bridge Asset Management system is not complete and accurate Audit Risk 3: Bridge Inspections are carried out as per agreed policies Audit Risk 4: Reputational damage to the Council Audit Risk 5: There are no procedures in place for mitigating the risk of late inspections Audit Risk 6: Monitoring and reporting of inspections is not in place Audit Opinion 11. We provide an overall audit opinion for all the audits we conduct. This is based on our judgement on the level of assurance which we can take over the established internal controls, governance and management of risk as evidenced by our audit work. Full details of the five possible categories of audit opinion is provided in Appendix 2 to this report. 12. Our overall audit opinion for this audit is that we can take a Reasonable level of assurance. This means that Internal control, governance and the management of risk are broadly reliable. However, whilst not displaying a general trend, there are areas of concern which have been identified where elements of residual risk or weakness may put some of the system objectives at risk.
Page 5
5 Argyll and Bute Council – Internal Audit Report – Bridge Asset Management, March 2025 Recommendations 13. We have highlighted one high priority recommendation, one medium priority recommendation and two low priority recommendations where we believe there is scope to strengthen the control and governance environment. These are summarised below: The Council should ensure a structured performance reporting framework is established to distribute reports to key stakeholders, include performance updates to Departmental Management Team (DMT) meetings, The Council should develop its own documented procedure for bridge inspections to ensure and document the process for compliance with the Well-managed Highway Infrastructure Code of Practice and DMRB CS 450, to enhance clarity, accountability, and adaptability while aligning inspection activities with external standards and the Council’s specific operational requirements. The Council should ensure formal records are maintained for all training completed by Bridge Inspectors, including certification courses and in-house training on the WebSMS asset management system, to enhance accountability and ensure compliance with training requirements. The Council should establish an audit trail within the WebSMS system to document late inspections, including reasons for delays, actions taken, and stakeholder communication, to enhance transparency and accountability. 14. Full details of the audit findings, recommendations and management responses can be found in Section 3 of this report and in the action plan at Appendix 1. 2. Objectives and Summary Assessment 15. Exhibit 1 sets out the control objectives identified during the planning phase of the audit and our assessment against each objective. Exhibit 1 – Summary Assessment of Control Objectives Control Objective Link to Risk Assessment Summary Conclusion CO1 There are Procedures in place for Managing Bridge Inventory Data which are Documented and communicated to appropriate personnel Audit Risk 1 Reasonable The Infrastructure Design team oversees 903 bridges, operating within a legislative and procedural framework that includes the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 and the DMRB standards. The Infrastructure Design team lacks a documented procedure to ensure compliance with the relevant national Codes of Practice relying instead on national Codes of Practice and Standards categorise and the WebSMS system. This reliance could result in reduced adaptability to local conditions, potential accountability gaps, and inconsistent processes. Additionally, while inspectors are trained, there is no formal record to
Page 6
6 Argyll and Bute Council – Internal Audit Report – Bridge Asset Management, March 2025 verify this, highlighting the need for documented procedures and training records to enhance accountability and transparency. CO2 All bridge inspection are carried out in accordance with General, Principal, and Special Inspections per the recommended frequencies and standards as outlined in the 'Well-managed Highway Infrastructure' Code of Practice and the DMRB CS 450. Audit Risk 2 Audit Risk 3 Audit Risk 4 Substantial A review of inspection reports from the WebSMS system confirmed that inspections are comprehensive and adhere to the 'Well-managed Highway Infrastructure' Code of Practice and DMRB CS 450 standards. The reports include calculated Condition Indicators & Scores, inspection of each bridge element, estimated costs of repairs and summary of work required. CO3 There are procedures in place for identifying and mitigating risks associated with late inspections, particularly for high- priority structures. Audit Risk 5 Reasonable The audit found gaps in WebSMS for managing late bridge inspections, as the system lacks a formal reporting mechanism to document delays, actions taken, and risk mitigation. Currently, inspectors manage this manually, though plans for an automated email report are underway. While risks for high- priority structure delays are addressed as needed, no formal procedures or records exist within WebSMS for these mitigation strategies or resource reallocation. CO4 There are regular performance reports generated and reviewed by relevant stakeholders and reports include key performance indicators in relation to inspection schedules and late inspections Audit Risk 6 Limited The audit identified gaps in performance reporting, including the absence of a structured framework to distribute reports to key stakeholders on a regular basis. Additionally, performance reports are not routinely included in Departmental Management Team (DMT) meetings or other forums, limiting opportunities for enhanced monitoring, accountability, and informed decision-making. Furthermore, there are no specific regular reports addressing late bridge inspections, nor are there formal action plans or follow-up measures to ensure compliance with inspection schedules.
Page 7
7 Argyll and Bute Council – Internal Audit Report – Bridge Asset Management, March 2025 16. Further details of our conclusions against each control objective can be found in Section 3 of this report. 3. Detailed Findings There are Procedures in place for Managing Bridge Inventory Data which are Documented and communicated to appropriate personnel. 17. The cyclic bridge inspection process, recorded within WebSMS, follows established standards including the 'Well-managed Highway Infrastructure' Code of Practice and the Standards for Highways/Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) CS 450 - Inspection of Highway Structures. The Infrastructure Design team is responsible for the oversight of 903 bridges within Argyll and Bute Council. Management within Infrastructure Design follow a framework of legislative, procedural, and operational documents to ensure effective and compliant management of highway structures. This includes the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, adherence to the Code of Practice: Well-Managed Highway Infrastructure, and implementation of design standards as outlined in the DMRB - Highway Structures and Bridges Series. Furthermore, the team operates in alignment with the Council's strategic objectives as detailed in the Roads Asset Management Plan (RAMP) - June 2017, providing a structured approach to maintaining and managing bridge infrastructure. 18. The audit found that the Council does not have its own documented service procedure for ensuring that bridge inspections are conducted in line with the national codes of practice. Instead, the Management complies with 'Well-managed Highway Infrastructure' Code of Practice and the Standards for Highways/Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) CS 450 - Inspection of Highway Structures and records asset management information within WDM WebSMS. The sole reliance on national Codes of Practice and Standards and the WebSMS (WDM) system without agreed internal procedures tailored to the Councils operational requirements may result in Reduced adaptability to address specific local requirements or unique structural conditions Potential gaps in accountability and clarity for staff responsible for inspections Inconsistent application of inspection processes, especially when relying solely on system outputs Vulnerability to interruption in service of the WebSMS (WDM) system including: failures by the provider, cyber-attack or other long duration ICT outage requiring reversion to “manual / paper based” approaches to bridge inspection and associated data collection. The Council should consider developing its own documented service procedure for bridge inspections setting out how compliance with the national codes of practice will be achieved in the context of Argyll and Bute Council. This would enhance clarity, accountability, and adaptability, ensuring that all inspection activities align with both external standards and the Council’s specific operational requirements. Action Plan 2
Page 8
8 Argyll and Bute Council – Internal Audit Report – Bridge Asset Management, March 2025 19. Council officers advised that Bridge Inspectors have completed comprehensive training under the Bridge Inspector Certification Scheme, ensuring they are qualified to conduct inspections in line with established standards. Inspectors follow the Inspection Manual for Highway Structures, Volumes 1 and 2, which guides inspection procedures. Additionally, training on the WDM WebSMS asset management system is provided internally by the Infrastructure Design team, as the system was developed specifically to meet the team's unique operational needs. This in- house, tailored training equips inspectors with the necessary skills to effectively manage bridge inventory data in the WebSMS system. While the client has indicated that Bridge Inspectors have completed relevant certification courses and received in-house training on using the WebSMS asset management system, there is no formal record of training maintained on file. Action Plan 3 20. Special Inspections are recorded within the WebSMS system, the current limitation is the inability to export these reports. The client was already aware of this issue and had instructed WDM to enhance the system's functionality to allow for exporting Special Inspection data in future for full Inspection History reports. This enhancement will facilitate more efficient audits and improve accessibility to inspection data. All bridge inspection are carried out in accordance with General, Principal, and Special Inspections per the recommended frequencies and standards as outlined in the 'Well-managed Highway Infrastructure' Code of Practice and the DMRB CS 450. 21. A sample of inspection reports from the WebSMS system were viewed via a desktop exercise. The review found inspections were comprehensive and aligned with 'Well-managed Highway Infrastructure' Code of Practice and the DMRB CS 450 standards. Checked carried out detailed within Inspections reports include: Calculated Structural Condition Indicators and Condition indicator scores indicating the average and critical condition of each bridge, Inspection of each bridge element including deck, sub structure, safety elements, and all other structural elements of each bridge, Estimated costs of repairs for each inspected bridge element which requires work, Work required section indicating where structures require works, including immediate attention (High Priority) where applicable. 22. The audit found that 38 bridges have inspections late by 26 months or more. While the report provided details on the late status, it did not specify the risk category of these bridges. This lack of information limits the Council’s ability to prioritise and address inspections based on the potential risk level associated with each structure. 23. The audit found that inspection resources for bridge inspections, particularly for high-priority or urgent matters, are allocated on an ad hoc basis, according to immediate needs. Consideration should be given to establishing a more structured approach for allocating inspection resources, particularly for high-priority or urgent inspections, to ensure that critical inspections are consistently prioritised and adequately resourced.
Page 9
9 Argyll and Bute Council – Internal Audit Report – Bridge Asset Management, March 2025 24. Concerns raised by the public are addressed through the same process as those initiated by Inspectors' recommendations following General Inspections. While Special Inspections are primarily triggered by Inspectors' observations, any inspections prompted by public concerns are handled consistently within the established inspection framework. There are procedures in place for identifying and mitigating risks associated with late inspections, particularly for high-priority structures. 25. The Code of Practice states that there should be a formal and traceable documentation process in place to manage and report on late inspections. This ensures accountability and continuous monitoring of inspection schedules and compliance with the 'Well-managed Highway Infrastructure' Code of Practice and the DMRB CS 450 standards. 26. The audit found that there is currently no audit trail within the WebSMS system (WDM) to document late inspections, including reasons for delays, actions taken, and stakeholder communication. Instead, this process is managed manually by inspectors outside of the system. Council officers noted that steps are underway to develop an automated report from WDM to capture and record this information formally via email. Establishing an integrated, automated audit trail within WebSMS would enhance transparency, accountability, and ease of access to records related to late inspections, providing a more robust system for tracking and managing inspection compliance. Action plan 4 27. The audit found that while council officers confirmed that risks associated with late inspections of high-priority structures are addressed as they arise, there is no formalised documentation of specific risk mitigation plans within the WebSMS system. To strengthen oversight, it is recommended that a formal process for documenting these risk mitigation strategies within the WebSMS system be implemented, ensuring consistent and transparent management of inspection delays. 28. The audit found that resources are reallocated as needed in response to inspection delays, including prioritisation for high-priority structures. This flexible approach helps to mitigate risks associated with inspection delays and ensures that high-priority structures receive attention promptly. However, formalising this process with documented procedures could enhance consistency and transparency in resource reallocation, providing clearer guidance for staff and further supporting effective risk management. There are regular performance reports generated and reviewed by relevant stakeholders and reports include key performance indicators in relation to inspection schedules and late inspections. 29. The Council's Annual Report highlights key data on the condition of bridge stock and associated challenges. The Bridge Stock Condition is now evaluated using a weighted average per span, with recent cyclic assessments showing a decline in condition over time. In the most recent cycle (2022-24), the Average Bridge Stock Condition was reported as 87.86 (out of 100), and the Critical Element Stock Condition as 79.08 (out of 100), both showing a significant drop compared to earlier cycles, such as 2016-18 when these figures were 89.46 and 82.40, respectively. A
Page 10
10 Argyll and Bute Council – Internal Audit Report – Bridge Asset Management, March 2025 backlog of maintenance works currently amounts to £32.4 million, exacerbating the declining condition trend. Additionally, the report identifies specific weak bridges within the Council's network, which are subject to weight restrictions ranging from 3 tonnes to 18 tonnes. Examples include Laggan Old Bridge (10T, Islay), Glendaruel Bridge (3T, Cowal), and Kilbride Bridge (10T, Cowal). In the near term it is unlikely that significant increases in capital budget allocation will enable a meaningful programme of works to address this backlog maintenance liability. These findings underscore the need for prioritised maintenance to address the growing infrastructure deficit and ensure public safety and functionality while recognising that difficult decision may be required that prioritizes the limited available resources to maximise the preservation of transport network functionality on the more highly used / critical road routes. 30. The audit found that no key performance indicators (KPIs) are currently established for the bridge inspection process, resulting in an absence of KPI-based performance reporting. Introducing relevant KPIs and incorporating them into regular performance reporting would enhance transparency, facilitate better decision-making, and support the timely identification and resolution of potential issues in bridge inspections. Action plan 1 31. The audit found that no performance reports are currently generated within the WebSMS system for distribution to relevant stakeholders. Without a structured reporting process, key stakeholders lack critical information needed to monitor inspection performance and allocate resources effectively. It is recommended that the Council establish a clear reporting framework to ensure that key stakeholders receive regular performance updates, enhancing oversight and accountability in bridge management. Action Plan 1 32. The audit determined that performance reports are not forwarded to Departmental Management Team (DMT) meetings or other relevant forums. Establishing regular performance reporting and including these in DMT meetings would strengthen monitoring practices, foster accountability, and enable timely decision-making regarding the bridge inspection management. Action plan 1 33. The audit revealed that no regular performance reports generated specifically for late bridge inspections, and consequently, no formal action plans or follow-up measures are developed to address these delays. Implementing a structured reporting process focused on late inspections, along with associated action plans to resolve identified issues, would improve oversight and help ensure that inspection schedules are adhered to, thereby enhancing the safety and reliability of the bridge infrastructure. Action Plan 1 34. Regular team meetings are held to discuss bridge inspection matters, ensuring ongoing oversight and coordination. A review of the meeting minutes confirmed that these discussions address key issues related to inspection schedules, prioritisation of high-risk structures, and any arising concerns regarding bridge maintenance and safety.
Page 11
Appendix 1 – Action Plan No Finding Risk Agreed Action Responsibility / Due Date High 1 Performance Reporting There are no regular performance reporting on the following: Structured reporting framework to distribute performance reports to key stakeholders on a regular basis. Performance reporting into Departmental Management Team (DMT) meetings and other relevant forums to improve monitoring, accountability, and decision-making. Specific regular performance reports for late bridge inspections, accompanied by formal action plans and follow-up measures to address delays and ensure compliance with inspection schedules. The absence of regular performance reporting also restricts visibility for relevant stakeholders, which may lead to delays in addressing late inspections and hinder proactive maintenance planning. A report setting out key performance information in relation to the annual programme of bridge inspections will be produced for review by the RIS senior management team on a quarterly basis. The report will be received by the RIS senior management team by the end of the month following quarter end at the latest. The first of these reports will be produced for review during the month of April 2025 for Q4 of 2024. A Quarterly Report on appropriate KPIs will be generated by WDM and can be aligned around ABC Reporting timescales. Currently a QR is being implemented to report on every bridge’s most recent inspection. The Quarterly Report will be accompanied by the most recent Late Inspections report. The overall suite of performance measures used by RIS is currently under review. Until such time as this review work is completed and a refreshed approach to service performance reporting is implemented the HoS will provide a by exception report to the Infrastructure Design Manager 30th June 2025
Page 12
12 Argyll and Bute Council – Internal Audit Report – Bridge Asset Management, March 2025 No Finding Risk Agreed Action Responsibility / Due Date Departmental Management Team on a quarterly basis setting out key metrics and risks associated with the annual bridge inspection programme. This reporting will commence for the Q4 period of 2024 and will follow reporting into the RIS senior management team and will therefore take place as early as possible in the month 2 months after quarter end i.e. commencing in June 2025. Medium 2 Procedures The Council should consider developing its own documented procedure for bridge inspections which sets out how the Council will achieve and ensure compliance with Well-managed Highway Infrastructure Code of Practice and DMRB CS 450. This would enhance clarity, accountability, and adaptability, ensuring that all inspection activities align with both external standards and the Council’s specific operational requirements. Reliance on national Codes of Practice and Standards without internalised procedures may reduce adaptability to local requirements, create gaps in accountability, and result in inconsistent application of inspection processes. A service manual will be developed setting out how the Council implements and assures compliance with Well-managed Highway Infrastructure Code of Practice and DMRB CS 450. This will not seek to replace the national Code of Practice but rather to articulate how the Council ensures compliance with it. Infrastructure Design Manager 30th September 2025 Low 3 Training While the client has indicated that Bridge Inspectors have completed relevant certification courses and received in- house training on using the WebSMS asset management system, there is no formal record of training maintained on file. The absence of documented training records creates a gap in verifying staff competency, which could lead to potential compliance issues and hinder accountability. Records shall be stored on Infrastructure Design network drive until instructed otherwise. Infrastructure Design Manager 31st March 2025
Page 13
13 Argyll and Bute Council – Internal Audit Report – Bridge Asset Management, March 2025 No Finding Risk Agreed Action Responsibility / Due Date Low 4 Audit Trail Re late Inspections The audit found that there is currently no audit trail within the WebSMS system (WDM) to document late inspections, including reasons for delays, actions taken, and stakeholder communication. Without an integrated, automated audit trail, there is limited transparency and accountability in tracking late inspections. Late Inspections are currently being recorded manually via a report Infrastructure. Design can export on WDM as to which reasons are added by the Infrastructure Design team. An automatic report is currently being built within WDM that will send a late inspections report. Late inspections and actions needed to ensure they are undertaken will form part of the quarterly reporting to RIS senior management team. This will enable the Infrastructure Design Team to highlight risks, articulate mitigations and to seek support where required to implement these. Infrastructure Design Manager 31st March 2025
Page 14
14 Argyll and Bute Council – Internal Audit Report – Bridge Asset Management, March 2025 In order to assist management in using our reports a system of grading audit findings has been adopted to allow the significance of findings to be ascertained. The definitions of each classification are as follows: Grading Definition High A major observation on high level controls and other important internal controls or a significant matter relating to the critical success of the objectives of the system. The weakness may therefore give rise to loss or error. Medium Observations on less significant internal controls and/or improvements to the efficiency and effectiveness of controls which will assist in meeting the objectives of the system. The weakness is not necessarily substantial however the risk of error would be significantly reduced if corrective action was taken. Low Minor recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of controls or an isolated issue subsequently corrected. The weakness does not appear to significantly affect the ability of the system to meet its objectives. VFM An observation which does not highlight an issue relating to internal controls but represents a possible opportunity for the council to achieve better value for money (VFM).
Page 15
15 Argyll and Bute Council – Internal Audit Report – Bridge Asset Management, March 2025 Appendix 2 – Audit Opinion Level of Assurance Definition High Internal control, governance and the management of risk are at a high standard. Only marginal elements of residual risk have been identified with these either being accepted or dealt with. A sound system of control designed to achieve the system objectives is in place and being applied consistently. Substantial Internal control, governance and the management of risk is sound. However, there are minor areas of weakness which put some system objectives at risk and specific elements of residual risk that are slightly above an acceptable level and need to be addressed within a reasonable timescale. Reasonable Internal control, governance and the management of risk are broadly reliable. However, whilst not displaying a general trend, there are areas of concern which have been identified where elements of residual risk or weakness may put some of the system objectives at risk. Limited Internal control, governance and the management of risk are displaying a general trend of unacceptable residual risk above an acceptable level and placing system objectives are at risk. Weakness must be addressed with a reasonable timescale with management allocating appropriate resources to the issues raised. No Assurance Internal control, governance and the management of risk is poor. Significant residual risk and/or significant non-compliance with basic controls exists leaving the system open to error, loss or abuse. Residual risk must be addressed immediately with management allocating appropriate resources to the issues.