Mendoza Unfolded Payments for Four Consecutive Years to Avoid Bidding
<p><span style="line-height: 1.6em;">It was in the health center Teodor J. Schestakow. The body for state control found that not only was the limit for direct purchasing exceeded, but they are also divided so that the amounts are consistent with this exceptional modality. For all of this, three employees were sanctioned with fines ranging from $2000 to $4000 pesos.</span></p> <div> </div>
The Court of Accounts of Mendoza decided to fine three senior officials of the Hospital Teodor J. Schestakow after detecting irregularities in prior periods (2008 to 2010): excess direct purchases and split expenses to avoid tendering procedures. Those that suffered the penalties were the Executive Director of the health center, fined $2000 and the Administrative Manager and the Accountant General for $4,000 pesos each.
One of the violations found by the Court was in the Hospital’s 2011 accountability, "the amount of monthly purchases by direct route was greater than the allowed" a situation that undermines the transparency of procurement.
It is important to remember that direct contracting is a method of purchasing goods that can only be used on rare occasions. In general, this procedure is authorized in the case of hiring at very low costs, if there is an urgent need for a specific good, unforeseen situations or of greater force that would not allow them to make prior arrangements to tender these situations, these, are some of the most common examples.
In the case of the Hospital in Mendoza, however, "everyday materials and supplies were bought, that were normal, habitual, frequent, and foreseeable, and so it must have been foreseen at the beginning of each year the call for tenders for these products." To this we add that the audit team could not find in the records "records of budgets and publication on the website."
Another irregularity that led to the fine was the splitting of costs. The audit team noted that "there were many purchases simultaneously or successively within the same month of the same items or services that bypass the bidding process form." In short, what they did was divide the amount of the purchase to fall within the parameters that allow direct recruitment.
Despite the release of the perpetrators, who justified their actions by "shortages of inputs", "budget deficit", and "the urgency and specificity of certain pathologies," the Court of Auditors decided to fine those responsible for the recurrence of their actions.
