COA: Anti-poverty body spent P8 million for ‘unnecessary’ consultants

The Commission on Audit (COA) has called out the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) over disbursements of P8 million to pay for consultants which state auditors deemed unnecessary.

In its annual audit report, state auditors noted that the NAPC's hiring of consultants did not undergo posting requirements to Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System (PhilGEPS) contrary to the Procurement Law and its Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR).

Likewise, COA said that the total disbursements for paying consultants exceeded the total budget indicated in the Annual Procurement Plan (APP) of the agency for 2021, which is also not in compliance with the provisions  of Procurement Law and its RIRR, depriving the government of the most advantageous price and resulted in the doubtful payment of transactions.

"The total budget for consultancy services as provided on the APP of the agency totaled only P300,000 for 2021 while total disbursements incurred for the year was P8,219,636. The procurement of consulting services, either through an individual consultant or a consultancy firm, is covered by the provisions of RA 9184 and its RIRR. As such, the hiring of said consultants without the benefit of public bidding is not justifiable," COA pointed out.

"Likewise, the requirement that the procuring entity obtain the most advantageous price in hiring them was not assured," it added.

Section 8.3.1, Rule 3 of the Procurement Law and its RIRR provide that all procuring entities are mandated to fully use the PhilGEPS in accordance with the policies, rules, regulations , and procedures adopted by the GPPB and embodied in the IRR.

The same law states that manufacturers , suppliers, distributors, contractors, and/or consultants are mandated to register with PhilGEPS and provide a PhilGEPS Registration Number in the following alternative methods of procurement as a condition for award of the contract: a) Direct Contracting; b) Shopping for Ordinary Office Supplies and Equipment not available in DBM-PS; c) Take Over of Contracts; d) Scientific, Scholarly, or Artistic Work, Exclusive Technology and Media Services ; e) Highly Technical Consultants; f) Small Value Procurement ; g) Lease of Real Property and Venue; and h) NGO Participation.

In addition, the state auditors cited an account of a Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) member who told COA that there was no procurement process for the individually-contracted consultants as the hiring were directly processed thru the Human Resources and Management Unit (HRMU).

This HRMU head then informed COA that the basis of hiring consultants was the authority to hire issued from the Office of the Secretary.

"The hiring of consultants was not done through competitive bidding as individually checked through their Procurement Monitoring Report for 2021. No documents were also provided evidencing the procurement of such consultants under alternative method upon confirmation with BAC," the COA said.

COA has tasked NAPC to strictly comply with the requirements of the Procurement law and pertinent laws, rules and regulations, particularly on the  conduct of public bidding and other procurement activities.

In addition, state auditors said that the NAPC should strictly observe the budget in the APP for Consultancy Services and ensure that total disbursement incurred in the procurement of such will not exceed the budget indicated in the APP.

The same COA report stated that NAPC hired 13 consultants in 2021 which include: six legal consultants, four media consultants, financial consultant; gender and development (GAD)/indigenous people (IP) consultant ; and an economic affairs consultant.

"Review of the tasks and functions as well as the accomplishments of the aforementioned consultants noted among others that the hiring of the Financial Consultant showed that it is not essential to the regular operations of the agency due to the existence of the AFMS - Finance Unit and Internal Audit Unit having the same functions with that of the Financial Consultant. Further, the agency is not into investing activities to need the services of Financial Consultant thus, unnecessary," COA said.

"Moreover, a Media and Public Relation Unit was also existing in the agency thus, functions of Media Consultants were dispensable. It was also noted that the functions and accomplishments of the Media  Consultants are video and photo documentations of activities and events of NAPC , conduct and organization of media coverage and press conferences, writing of articles/opinions/commentaries about NAPC activities and other matters that could also be performed by the Media and Public Relation Unit and even other NAPC employees and staff," COA added.

The hiring of unnecessary consultants, COA said, resulted in additional expenditures worth P3.39 million.

"This (P3.39 million) is considered not essential and which can be dispensed with without loss or damage to property. Incurrence of such expenditure may have been avoided had the Management properly analyzed/assessed whether hiring of such consultants was really essential and advantageous to the mandate and operations of the agency," COA said.

In response to COA's findings, the NAPC argued that the consultants enumerated were hired legally and their hiring is anchored on trust and confidence and on their technical skills needed in the agency.

The NAPC then said that the consultants hired for the 2021 were approved and recommended for hiring by the Position Allocation List Evaluation Group based on the needs of the regional and island group units created through Special Order No. 2018-12-476 dated December 6 2018.

NAPC also cited the gravity of the tasks and the lack of responsible officers to advise the implementation of NAPC-PAGCOR Agreement as a special project and rolling out of the Magna Carta of the Poor in 2021 prompted NAPC to hire said consultants.

"The hiring of the said highly technical consultants is consistent with the negotiated procurement as provided under alternative mode of procurement under Annex H of the IRR of the Procurement law," the NAPC said.

The NAPC, however, acknowledged that they could do better.

"While the above mode of procurement does not require the posting of procurement opportunity or advertisement of vacancy to the PhilGEPS website, we acknowledge that NAPC failed to post the Notice of Award and contract to the PhilGEPS website, and we humbly ask for the continued  guidance of the Audit Team regarding this matter," it added.—LDF, GMA News