By Gerome Dalipe IV
Why accept and pay for the products not listed in your purchase order? Normally, you will refuse and have these items replaced with the correct ones.
But officials of the General Services Office of the Iloilo Provincial Government accepted and paid about P3.378 million worth of farm inputs although these items were not the same specification in the purchase order.
“As a result, the Iloilo Provincial Government is put at a disadvantage since the best price, quality, and quantity of items delivered were not guaranteed,” the Commission on Audit (COA) noted in its annual audit report for 2022.
Such negligence on the part of the GSO personnel violated COA Circular No. 92- 386 since they accepted and paid despite not conforming with the specifications in the purchase order. This might jeopardize the procured items’ price, quality, and quantity.
Records showed the Provincial Government purchased assorted farm inputs totaling P3.378 million. These farm inputs would be used as seed capital for the Organization of Farmers Cooperative, one of the beneficiaries of the project.
A review and verification of the supporting documents attached to the disbursement voucher for the payment of the procured farm inputs by auditors showed the two items delivered, inspected, and accepted were not under the specifications provided in the order.
For instance, instead of 35 grams per packet of Cypermethrin, the items delivered were 35 grams/packet of Molluscicide with the brand name Sure Kill.
However, the Sure Kill brand does not contain Cypermethrin as an ingredient. Other ordered items were the 35 grams per packet of Coumatetralyl. But the supplier delivered a 20-gram packet of Racumin.
Likewise, the description of the actual items delivered was not reflected in the acceptance and inspection report (AIR) but was indicated the same as specified in the purchase order.
The deficiencies further showed that Racumin was short in weight, thus lesser in quantity. On the other hand, Sure Kill differed in quality from that of the ordered item, thus, the price should be adjusted based on the prevailing prices of the items delivered.
Replying to the audit report, the GSO admitted that the inspector acted beyond his authority and should have asked for a technical expert for the products that he was not technically equipped to inspect.
The Capitol’s services office vowed to impose corrective measures to prevent further repetition of the procedural lapse in the conduct of the inspection.
These include meetings, briefings, and orientation on the guidelines and procedures for inspecting and accepting deliveries.
The GSO personnel will undergo training with accredited training officers for Property and Supply Management to be completed in 2023.
The office will also impose a restructuring of personnel and protocols for the inspection of deliveries through the formation of inspection teams will be implemented to ensure accountability not only of the inspectors but also of the respective inspection teams.
On the other hand, the Office of the Provincial Accountant already sent a demand letter to the supplier to refund the amount equivalent to the difference or excess between the price of the delivered item ordered.
Responding to the discrepancies, the GSO stressed they relied only on the supplier’s and beneficiary’s competence in determining the conformity of the product delivered to that described in the purchase order.
Their inspector believed that SureKill is a brand with the generic name “Cypermitrin.” The item was accepted despite the packaging being less than the ordered item due to the offer of the supplier to increase the quantity in packets to fill the missing grams.
The GSO admitted that there was a procedural lapse in accepting the items. They assured, though, that similar deficiencies will not happen again by reminding their personnel to strictly implement their procedure.
They assured that they will request technical assistance from experts whenever an item subject to inspection requires technical knowledge or competency such as in the case of insecticides.
In the audit report, COA recommended to the GSO to require the supplier to refund the amount equivalent to the difference or excess between the prices of the delivered and the ordered items.
The auditors also directed the GSO to demand from the supplier the delivery of additional packets of 20g per packet of Racumin to complete the lacking quantity in grams.
The state auditors also asked the GSO inspector and all those concerned personnel to properly observe the guidelines in the conduct of inspection and acceptance of the items delivered.
