THE Commission on Audit has ruled that the Department of Tourism (DOT) does not have to pay the P6.48 million claim for compensation filed by a contractor for alleged unpaid services in relation to the 50th Anniversary Commemorative Celebration of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in 2017.
The commission said the claim filed by Total Exhibit and Expo Solutions Inc. (TEESI) cannot be granted because of violations of the provisions of RA 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act and insufficiency of documents to prove the validity of the transaction.
“The procurement protocols under RA No. 9184 were not adhered to in this case. TEESI was disqualified during prequalification as its bid was not responsive to the Terms of Reference Technical Eligibility Requirement of three-year experience in designing large scale events,” the COA declared.
Records showed that the DOT Special Bids and Awards Committee (SBAC) invited interested bidders that can provide venue designer and stylist services for the decoration of the SM Mall of Asia Arena Dropoff area; conversion of the SM MOA Arena concourse lobby into a cocktails area; and preparation of the Arena Event Bowl as dinner reception area for 500 attendees.
Auditors noted that TEESI was disqualified because it could not comply with the eligibility requirement of at least three years in handling large-scale events.
Without holding another bidding, the DOT resorted to a negotiated procurement with TEESI by waiving the deficiency.
In its claim, the contractor said other than the scope of work originally contracted, it was also called upon to decorate holding areas for VIP guests which cost it another P1.78 million on top of the P4.7 million spent on the earlier work plan.
The DOT, under new management, withheld payment to TEESI on the ground that the transaction was not compliant with RA 9184 and the fund intended for the project had already lapsed.
In its decision, the COA Commission Proper agreed with the prosecution that the resort to negotiated procurement was not justified since there was only one failed bidding when the law requires there should be two failed biddings before the agency can legally negotiate directly with the contractor.
“In this case, resort(ing) to negotiated procurement is not justified …there was only one failed bidding. RA No. 9184 requires two failed biddings,” the COA said.
Likewise, it questioned the validity of the Contract of Services, noting that the Contract of Service was made in 2018 after TEESI had already rendered its required services.
