Expenses for Sibonga music fest questioned

CEBU, Philippines — The Commission on Audit (COA) has questioned items worth P920,000 included in the Municipality of Sibonga’s P3.34-million music festival contract, saying these should not have been procured through a special procurement method intended for artistic and creative services.

In its annual audit report, COA said the questioned expenses covered lights and sounds, barricades, LED walls, bleachers, portable toilets, accommodation, and logistics for the municipality’s music festival held on August 9, 2025.

“These items are readily available in the open market and should have been procured separately using other applicable procurement modalities,” reads a portion of the COA report.

State auditors said these items were readily available in the open market and did not involve the specialized creative design, artistic skill, or work of art required to justify negotiated procurement under Section 35.6 of the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 12009, or the New Government Procurement Act.

The audit team said the inclusion of these items in the contract deprived the government of the opportunity to obtain the most advantageous prices through other applicable competitive procurement methods.

Procurement process questioned

The transaction covered the procurement of artistic work for event organizing and entertainment, which the municipality awarded for P3.34 million.

The Bids and Awards Committee (BAC), through Resolution No. 429-25 approved on July 28, 2025,  recommended negotiated procurement under the provision covering scientific, scholarly, or artistic work, exclusive technology, and media services. The approved budget for the contract was P3.35 million.

The contract was awarded through a Notice of Award dated July 31, 2025, followed by a Memorandum of Agreement dated August 4, 2025.

Based on the supplier’s submitted quotation, the contract was divided into four major categories: professional services worth P470,000; artists and performers worth P1.95 million; lights, sounds, and other event equipment worth P520,000; and accommodation and logistics worth P400,000.

The P920,000 questioned by COA covered the last two categories, which included equipment rentals, barricades, bleachers, portable toilets, lodging, vehicle rentals, transportation of equipment, sanitation, security, and medical and emergency support services.

Under Section 35.6 of the IRR of RA 12009, negotiated procurement may be used for qualifying artistic work, commissioned creative services, or work requiring specific artistic skills, among other specified circumstances.

However, COA maintained that the questioned items did not fall within these conditions because they were ordinary services and supplies that could be sourced separately from the market.

Possible duplication of expenses

Aside from the procurement method, auditors also flagged possible duplication of deliverables in the contract.

COA noted that lodging for performers and guests, transportation, and sanitation services listed under the accommodation and logistics category appeared to have already been covered by other items in the contract.

The audit team said these overlapping provisions could have been avoided, potentially reducing the overall cost of the music festival.

“The said duplications could have been avoided, thereby reducing the overall cost of the said contract,” COA stated.

The municipality also included medical and emergency support services in the contract despite having personnel assigned to its health and disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM) units.

According to the BAC, these personnel were fully occupied with their regular duties during the event, prompting the municipality to include the services in the contract.

However, the audit team said the municipality had not submitted documentary evidence or its equivalent to establish that the health and DRRM personnel were fully occupied and unable to provide the required services.

COA also noted that the event management service providers had not presented proof that they were technically capable of providing the medical and emergency support services included in the contract.

Sibonga LGU explains

In its reply, the BAC defended the inclusion of the questioned items, explaining that the municipality considered the nature and artistic requirements of the event when determining the scope of services.

The committee said that although lights and sounds, barricades, LED walls, bleachers, portable toilets, accommodation, and logistics might not appear to involve specialized creative work, it considered it appropriate for the artists to arrange the different elements of the event environment to ensure optimal performances.

The BAC also expressed concern that procuring these services separately could result in the splitting of contracts.

COA acknowledged the management’s explanation but stood by its findings, reiterating that the items were readily available in the open market and should have been procured separately through other applicable procurement methods.

Apart from the questioned expenses, COA found that the municipality had not submitted documentary proof that it conducted the required market scoping to establish the reasonableness of the approved budget for the contract.

Instead, the municipality submitted a certification from the municipal administrator, acting as the end-user, stating that efforts had been made to secure the most advantageous price for the government based on existing price data from the agency and other relevant government offices.

Under Section 10 of the IRR of RA 12009, procuring entities are required to conduct market scoping during the preliminary preparation of their procurement plans. This process involves gathering market information to assess available suppliers, pricing trends, service capabilities, and other factors relevant to procurement decisions.

COA said the absence of supporting documents deprived the municipality of relevant market information and appropriate cost estimates.

Auditors also found that the contract form used by the municipality did not conform to the prescribed form issued by the Government Procurement Policy Board (GPPB), contrary to Section 6 of the IRR, which requires the use of standardized procurement forms unless duly approved modifications are made.

COA recommended that the municipal mayor, through the BAC and concerned offices, submit additional documentation and undertake remedial measures for the audit team’s evaluation.

The audit team also recommended that the municipal government revisit the procurement rules under RA 12009 and ensure that the required conditions and procedures are observed before using any procurement method, as well as comply with the standardized forms and regulations issued by the GPPB.

The Municipality of Sibonga, according to the audit report, agreed to the recommendations. — (FREEMAN)