CEBU, Philippines - The Commission on Audit has questioned Carcar City's procurement of meals and snacks for its activities in 2013 amounting to P3.2 million only from three suppliers.
"Procurement of meals and snacks of the city for P3.2 million was limited to three the same suppliers only for the entire year, thus, creating doubts as to the wide dissemination of bid opportunities as required in the implementing rules and regulations of RA 9184 in order to obtain the most advantageous price," COA's annual audit report read.
State auditor Cymbeline Celia Uy noted that the Carcar City government limited its suppliers of meals and snacks only to MJOSH Food Inn, AYG Catering Services, and Julianas Catering Services.
"As observed, these were the same suppliers who participated in the canvass or were canvassed whenever the city needs meals for its activities," COA pointed out.
COA also noted that the signatures of the alleged recipients of meals and snacks "have similar strokes in signing to acknowledge receipt of meals and snacks."
"It was further noted that the same name appeared twice or thrice in one activity as recipient. This would create doubt on the regularity and legality of the transaction," the report read.
"We recommend that the BAC provide for a wide dissemination of the city's procurement activities in order to obtain/attract more suppliers. The practice of procuring only from the same suppliers defeat competitiveness, one of the governing principles of RA 9184 in order," it added.
The state audit agency recommended that the city treasurer explain in writing on the questionable signatures of alleged recipients to prove that the transaction is regular and legal.
Also, the COA found out that the duration of the service contract with a total cost of P6 million for the collection and disposal of solid waste was changed from 1 to 20 years as specified in the invitation to apply for eligibility to bid.
The auditing body also noticed that there was no re-advertisement and/or posting for the re-bidding of the said project contrary to Section 35.3 of the Revised IRR of RA 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act).
COA said there was a "sudden change" in the duration of the project and that there was no rebidding, instead the city just amended the contract from 1 year to 20 years.
"The change of the contract duration not only showed that they are providing misleading and inconsistent project data. Extending the duration of the contract from 1 year to 20 years would give them the luxury of not having the project subjected to public bidding in the succeeding years, which is contrary to the law," COA said.
The city government was asked to explain the change and the non-advertisement of the second bidding of the service contract.
"If the reason is not tenable then the payments shall be disallowed," it said.
COA recommended that "any project" to be re-bidded must be re-advertised.— (FREEMAN)