Francisco José Sánchez reflects on a “particularly turbulent” time regarding discussions over emergency hiring.
SANTA CRUZ DE TENERIFE, 25 Nov. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The delegated auditor of the Canarian Health Service (SCS), Francisco José Sánchez, expressed this Monday, as a personal “opinion”, that the agreement made with the company RR7 United, which received four million in two instalments of two million for the purchase of a million masks that were not delivered, ought to have been annulled following the initial payment.
“Once the first disbursement occurs and the obligations are not fulfilled within a reasonable time frame, the contract should be terminated, which is applicable for the second payment, not the first,” he stated during an appearance before the investigative commission of the Parliament of the Canary Islands.
Sánchez, who currently works at the Canary Islands Tax Agency, highlighted that there was a “particularly turbulent” time when it was “justifiable” to initiate the emergency hiring procedure, while also admitting that there was a lack of diligence in assessing the reliability of the “new” suppliers of medical equipment.
However, he noted that in the case of ‘Soluciones de Gestión’, linked to the ‘Koldo case’ and which invoiced the autonomous community 12 million, its reliability was proven when it managed to meet the demand for masks within a week.
He mentioned that since the Intervention identified “deficiencies” in several contracts, these were not sufficient grounds to nullify them, alongside the fact that there was a “contentious debate” regarding the application and interpretation of article 120 of the public sector contracts legislation.
“The contracting authorities did not reach an agreement. The contracting authority has always regarded article 120 as a blank cheque, allowing them, for these emergency reasons, to procure goods and services, even through verbal agreements,” he emphasised, contrasting it with his own more “restrictive” interpretation.
In this context, he pointed out that the resolution from 6 March 2020, issued by the General Directorate of Assets and Contracting, was not properly “interpreted” by the contracting authorities, as they processed expenditures as if they were minor contracts.
“They merely request the supply, ask for the service, submit an invoice, acknowledge it, and we process the payment; therefore, we from the Intervention assert that the article 120 is not a minor procedure,” he noted.
Moreover, he disagreed with the assertion that there was no accounting of the emergency contracts signed during the pandemic due to “lack of time,” as stated in reports by the Economic Resources Directorate of the SCS.
Nonetheless, he acknowledged that “discordant voices” began in the latter half of 2020 when the first inquiries into the contracts surfaced.
INTERPRETIVE CONFUSION, “A CHALLENGE”
“The stance or thesis that the service contracting body has consistently defended was directly applied, procedures needed to be overlooked, acquisitions had to be made, there was a matter of public interest, it was a case of emergency, and indeed everything had to be expedited,” he commented.
Sánchez maintained that, to uphold a “perspective of legality”, it was necessary to ensure that the company providing the material “was engaged in that economic activity” and “could demonstrate” it had fulfilled the supply.
He acknowledged that this divergence in interpretation constituted a “challenge” as both the intervention and the contracting authority lacked “interpretative rigour in the regulation.”
He further stated that he was unaware the management committee had mandated the procurement of materials, as he believed that the “executing body” was the General Directorate of Economic Resources based on technical reports.
With respect to the utilisation of European funds, he clarified that Feder resources cannot be allocated for structural expenses, although co-financing was later approved through the React-EU programme.
Nonetheless, he admitted that the administrative framework of the autonomous community was unprepared for a pandemic and suggested that, looking forward, it would be beneficial to establish an “action plan” to ensure that all procedures are documented.
