Procurement
8. The Municipality awarded and paid a contract amounting to ₱2,249,200.00 for the
purchase and installation of a solar system to a bidder who did not provide a Single
Largest Completed Contract (SLCC) contrary to Section 23.4.1.3 of the Revised
IRR of RA No. 9184, making the transaction irregular and raising concerns about
the Municipality’s compliance with procurement regulations.
8.1. Our post-audit of CY 2024 transactions revealed that the Municipality awarded and
paid ₱2,249,200.00 for the purchase and installation of solar systems to a sole
bidder, Rav’s Enterprises, which did not provide a valid statement of the bidder’s
SLCC (see Appendix 5 for the disbursement voucher).
8.2. Our inquiry with the Municipal Accountant revealed that during his review of the
completeness of supporting documents, he noted that the supplier’s initial Statement
of Single Largest Completed Contract (SLCC) either had no listed items or simply
stated “NONE” for contracts similar to the one being bid. When the Municipal
Accountant further questioned the validity of this document, the supplier presented
an SLCC from a different company, although it was owned by the same proprietor
as the winning bidder.
8.3. It is important to emphasize that the Municipal Accountant signed the Disbursement
Voucher (DV) with a note regarding the propriety of the SLCC. This decision
followed a memorandum issued by the BAC outlining their position on the SLCC
submitted by the winning bidder.
8.4. Our examination of the said BAC Memorandum No. 2024-32 dated July 23, 2024
showed that it contained the BAC’s position on the participation of R CODE
Builders and Aggregate Supply as the installer of the solar system supplied by
winning bidder, Rav’s Enterprises (Appendix 6). In this memo, the BAC stated that
“Rav’s Enterprises is a store and supplier of various materials only including that of
solar systems has a sister company, R CODE Builders and Aggregate Supply, who
has experience in the solar system installation.” Furthermore, the BAC explicitly
stated that Rav’s Enterprises, having no technical capability to install the system,
relied on the technical expertise of its sister company, R CODE Builders and
Aggregate Supply. Ultimately, the BAC justified that the SLCC of R CODE
Builders and Aggregate Supply is valid since both entities are owned by the same
proprietor.
8.5. Moreover, during an interview with the BAC Chairman and the BAC TWG
Chairman, the Audit Team asked about the basis for awarding the contract to a
bidder without an SLCC. They explained that their decision was based on the
company’s track record and their preference for a supplier from the Municipality of
Bindoy. They believed that choosing a local supplier would enable easier
coordination and access in case repairs were required.
65
