Explain, refund irregular expenditures, COA says
Last week it was the "landscape scam" aimed at beautifying the entrance of the Iloilo Rehabilitation Center (IRC) in Pototan, Iloilo.
This time it moved on to "fertilizer scam" relative to Capitol's compliance of its role in a Department of Agriculture (DA) and Bureau of Soils and Water Management (BSWM) project. While at it, the food catering issue too in a supposed "farmers' field day" that lacked documents for the payment made to the Capitol caterer.
Valued P232,145.85, the Commission on Audit (COA) in an Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) dubbed the transaction as an irregular expenditure.
As such, government auditors want an explanation and full refund from four Capitol officials. The four – Provincial Accountant Lyd Tupas, Provincial Agriculturist Ildefonso Toledo, General Services Office (GSO) chief Ramie Salcedo and inspector Danny Baldemor - were held by the Commission as directly responsible to said irregular deal.
The AOM was addressed to the four's superior, Governor Niel Tupas Sr. stating, "we shall be grateful for your comments… duly signed and dated…"
The AOM began with the definition of an "irregular expenditure" explaining it is incurred without adhering to established rules, regulations, procedural guidelines, policies, principles or practices that have gained recognition in law."
Further still, the COA wrote, "Irregular expenditures are incurred without conforming with prescribed usages and rules of discipline... A transaction conducted in a manner that deviates or departs from, or which does not comply with standards set…"
And the Capitol did just that, the COA discovered anew in this particular transaction following the signing of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the DA and the BSWM.
"Among others, the MOA stipulates that the provincial government procures the materials for the establishment of the Rapid Composting Techno Demo Farms," the COA wrote.
In a post-audit, a team of COA auditors discovered advance delivery of some items identified in the Purchase Order (PO), incomplete documents as in the case of a missing Delivery Receipt and delivery of items not even included in the requisition.
"In summary, there were inconsistencies in the observance of procurement procedures for this project," the COA added. "On the other hand, delivery of items not found in the PR and PO does not oblige government to pay the supplier considering that it does not form part of the contract."
The Commission also wants the Capitol's Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) "to cause the delivery of 21 bags of Urea fertilizer or refund from the supplier for the undelivered quantity."
And finally, the last recommendation here for the Capitol to back its disbursement for payment made to a Capitol caterer relative to the program's implementation.
A "farmers' field day" was apparently conducted with an undisclosed amount paid for the food catering services. The COA wants something as proof for instance a "Program of Activities" if only to support the payment made thereof and "for documentation purposes."