THE Commission on Audit has partially granted the appeal of a private contractor relative to 10 disallowed infrastructure projects in Palawan in 2008 with a total cost of P82.6 million.
In a five-page decision, the COA Commission Proper said that BCT Trading and Construction cannot be held liable for the total project cost but only for excess payments amounting to P20.68 million.
The ruling was signed by COA Chair Michael G. Aguinaldo and Commissioner Roland C. Pondoc.
Records showed government auditors issued notices of disallowance against the 10 projects for violations of RA 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act, specifically the non-posting of the invitation to bid on the Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System and overpayment to the construction firm based on overstatement of the accomplishments.
The investigation was part of the COA’s review of the P2.4 billion Malampaya oil and gas royalties spent by the provincial government of Palawan in 2008.
Among the biggest projects in the list were the P40.2 million YKR Airport Highway Junction Road; the P30.32 million Dinagpan-Dipulao Road; and the P4.97 million Pinagbarilan-Barangay Marcilla Road, all in Coron, Palawan.
In its appeal, the contractor argued that it cannot be faulted regarding the non-posting on PhilGEPS because it is a function of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC). Likewise, it pointed out that RA 9184 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations do not provide that non-posting on PhilGEPS renders the contract void.
It also asked the COA to consider the publication of public bidding on newspapers of general circulation as “substantial compliance” of the requirements in RA 9184.
“This Commission agrees with the appellant that she could not be faulted for the non-posting of the IAEB (Invitation to Apply for Eligibility and to Bid) in the PhilGEPS. Notably, it is the duty of the BAC to post the IAEB, as explicitly provided in Section 12 of RA No. 9184,” the Commission said.
However, the COA said it cannot excuse the contractor from the issue of overpayment because of its failure to rebut the computation.
“The appellant failed to rebut the finding of overpayment as a result of actual verification and evaluation conducted by the SAT, in the total amount of P20,681,604.60, due to the overstatement of the project accomplishment as per SWA. Payment in excess of project accomplishment is deemed to be excessive, hence, the disallowance for which the contractor should be held liable is proper,” it declared.
