The Court of Auditors has detected various irregularities in the contracting of Penitentiary Institutions, especially in the use of minor contracts. According to its conclusions, in 27.4% of the files there would have been an "inadequate use" of this modality by resorting to it to cover "recurring or foreseeable needs." Furthermore, in nearly 90% of the cases, there is no documentary evidence of the invitations to companies to submit their proposals, and none record the reasons for their rejection.
These conclusions are included in the audit report on contracting charged to program 133A, related to Centers and Penitentiary Institutions, corresponding to the fiscal years 2023 and 2024, as communicated by the body chaired by Enriqueta Chicano.
The document, which Europa Press has accessed, reviews 168 contracts with a total value of 124 million euros, processed under this budget program of the Ministry of the Interior through the General Secretariat of Penitentiary Institutions and its dependent entities. Of that total, 95 files correspond to minor contracts for a combined amount of three million euros.
Deficiencies in the setting and justification of prices
In the higher value contracts, the Court notes deficiencies in the preparation of prior studies and in the justification of the price, "due to lack of breakdown of direct and indirect costs and absence of mention of the applicable collective agreements."
Likewise, the auditing body draws attention to the "use of valuation systems of criteria through judgment, employing minimum thresholds, without the valuation being carried out by specialized bodies or a committee of experts," along with "deficiencies in the control of execution."
In most of the files, problems have been identified both in the formulation of the special execution conditions —limited in many cases to reproducing generic legal obligations— and in the supervision by the contracting bodies of their effective compliance, which, warns the Court, significantly reduces their usefulness.
In relation to minor contracting, "it is evident that the reason for its use was based in many cases simply on its amount."
Unjustified budgets and offers at the limit of the minor contract
The analysis reveals that, in none of the examined service and supply contracts, it is stated how the bidding budget was calculated. Furthermore, in 35.8% of the reviewed minor contracts, the estimated value was very close to the legally permitted limit (15,000 euros for services and supplies and 40,000 euros in the case of works).
The Court also highlights that, in 25.3% of the contracts, the reports that certify the necessity of the expenditure were drafted after receiving the offers from the companies. Likewise, in 27.4% of the cases, there was an improper recourse to minor contracting to cover needs of a recurrent and/or foreseeable nature.
Regarding the promotion of competition, only in 11.6% of the analyzed minor contracts are the invitations sent to the companies to submit their offers listed, and in none, the reasons for their rejection. Additionally, in 23.2% of the files, the presence of offers whose amount exceeded the limits of the minor contract is detected, which forced their inadmissibility and reduced or annulled effective competition.
Recommendations to strengthen controls
The report proposes to implement an annual planning of the anticipated contracting, limit the use of evaluation phases conditioned to thresholds of criteria subject to value judgment, and incorporate clear and detailed execution control procedures that are truly operational. It also suggests establishing special execution conditions directly linked to the object of the contract, as well as regulating the mechanisms to document and verify compliance and the penalties to be applied in case of non-compliance.
Regarding minor contracts, the Court recommends restricting their use through better programming of contracting needs and requiring that the budget be sufficiently justified in the necessity report. Likewise, it insists that there must be written evidence of the invitations sent to the companies to bid, the receipt of the same, and, if applicable, the reasons why they decline to submit an offer.