DepEd consultants questioned by COA

The Commission on Audit (COA) has questioned the Department of Education’s hiring of consultants in 2010, saying it was “irregular and unnecessary” since the functions they performed could have been done by the DepEd’s regular staff.

In its 2010 report on the department released only recently, the COA said the DepEd’s Office of the Secretary (Osec) and the Baguio Teachers Camp (BTC) had hired consultants for P14.285 million and P380,000, respectively, despite a moratorium.

The audit agency said the Osec entered into a contract with 69 consultants whose monthly rates ranged from P17,500 to P35,000. The consultants included 20 private lawyers who were hired without the necessary approval of the Office of the Solicitor General, it noted.

Not needed

It found that the consultants performed the functions of supervising administrative officers, legislative liaison specialists, attorneys and legal assistants despite all the openings in those positions having been filled except for one liaison specialist and one attorney.

“Thus, there were available personnel who could perform the designated functions, negating the necessity of hiring,” the COA said.

The auditor noted as well that 21 consultants performed ordinary functions that could have been done by DepEd employees. It said accomplishment reports showed the consultants reviewed documents for approval by office heads and other assignments, but these were not functions included in the definition of consultant under the National Budget Circular.

No bidding

Records also showed that no public bidding was conducted to procure the consultancy services, it said.

As for the Baguio Teachers Camp, the COA said it entered into two consultancy contracts, but the functions the consultants performed were neither highly technical, proprietary nor confidential in nature. These were also not functions in which trust and confidence were the primary considerations.

“Further, the accomplishment reports of the consultants showed that most of the services rendered were not in accordance with the activities specified in their contracts, which services appeared to be ordinary and which could be performed by available in-house personnel,” it said.

The contracts were procured through negotiated procurement.