By The Star Staff
The Office of the Comptroller of Puerto Rico (OCPR by its initials in Spanish) issued an adverse opinion on the Municipality of Las Piedras’ fiscal operations for maintaining contracts with firms involved in a collusion scheme.
The tests and evidence revealed that the Office of Purchasing and Supplies’ operations, with respect to the purchasing process for truck leasing, were not carried out in accordance with the applicable law and regulations.
The report revealed that the municipality’s former director and interim director of purchasing and supplies repeatedly failed to comply with the established process for requesting and processing quotes. In violation of current legislation, the officials requested truck leasing, trailer rental, and tow truck services from suppliers and companies that were perpetrating a possible collusion scheme.
From the examination carried out on 36 purchase orders for $352,085 issued to supplier A and four purchase orders for $10,085 issued to supplier B, officials considered 108 quotes from suppliers A and B and from companies C, D, E, and F. Company C had been revoked by the State Department since 2014, and no record was found for Company D. The full name of the representative was not included in the quotes but rather a nickname.
The situations were referred to the Office of Government Ethics of Puerto Rico (OEGPR), and to the Department of Justice, on Feb. 9, 2023 for possible negligence in the fulfillment of duty outlined in the Criminal Code.
The audit of six findings notes that the suppliers that competed in the awarding of the services are associated with each other, organized commercially or corporately to bid concertedly, and ignore the principle of fair competition and transparency.
For example, the municipality paid $342,000 to supplier A, the son of company C’s president and treasurer. In awarding the purchases, officials considered 32 quotes from company C, which as previously noted had been revoked by the Department of State. In this payment, 32 quotes from company D that did not exist in state records were also considered.
Meanwhile, the municipality paid $123,372 to Supplier B for purchases in which quotes from Supplier A and Company C were considered. In addition, they paid $4,700 to Supplier B, in which they considered a quote from Company E. Supplier B and Company E share the same president, the same incorporator, and the same postal and physical addresses.
The situations were referred to the Department of Justice and the Office of Antitrust Affairs on Feb. 9, 2023 for appropriate action.
Comments