| Work Detail |
The Court of Auditors sanctioned Gustavo Soto, former head of the municipality of Tupungato, for expanding the scope of a tender and authorizing a redetermination of prices almost eight months after a project was awarded.
The Court of Auditors announced a ruling in which it fined the former mayor of Tupungato, Gustavo Soto, and members of his cabinet, after detecting a series of irregularities in a public tender in 2021.
Soto will have to pay $140,000, while the former Secretaries of Government, José Miguel Jiménez, and of Finance and Administration, Jorge Gastón Galdames, will have to pay $120,000 and $170,000, respectively.
The controversy revolves around tender No. 562/2021, in which the provision of 500 cubic meters of H21 concrete was originally contracted. However, an administrative resolution issued in May 2022, months after the original contract had ended, modified the object of the tender by replacing part of the material with a different type (H25) and increasing the contracted quantity.
According to the specifications and the contract, originally, “the purpose of the tender was established as the acquisition of 500 cubic meters of ready-mix concrete of the type, commercially and technically defined as H21. Through the indicated Resolution, 310 cubic meters of the same (H21) are replaced by another concrete corresponding to a typology defined as H25. Also, for the difference in cost of the type of concrete, the sum of $1,000 per M3 is recognized, totaling this concept at $310,000.”
On the other hand, article two “expands the bidding object by adding 47 more cubic meters in the provision of H25 type concrete,” as well as “the use of two pump services” - not provided for anywhere in the specifications - “at a cost of $35,000 each. For these concepts, the total amount is $483,600.”
This change, in addition to not being contemplated in the official documentation, was justified by a technical note that lacked solid support.
According to the ruling, these actions not only altered the terms of the contract, but also violated key principles of transparency and equality. The unilateral and untimely modification of the tendered object, coupled with the recognition of higher costs, raised suspicions about the integrity of the process.
Despite the justifications presented, the Court concluded that there was functional negligence on the part of the authorities involved.
“It is not a normal and regular practice on the part of the administration to reopen a completed tender file ex officio to authorize other expenses, since one of the fundamental principles in terms of tendering is the immutability of the terms and conditions, since it is there where the object, rights and obligations of the bidder, the offerors and the successful bidder, and the timely, diligent and active behavior of the administration are specified,” the document explains.
18159
Download
Furthermore, the ruling highlights that "there is evidence of negligent conduct on the part of those
involved and they state several months later, when the contract was already finalized, that an increase in value should be recognized for the company due to the difference in the product and for other additional materials to those tendered, which should have been used."
The ruling also highlighted the lack of an internal cash control system in the municipality, which allowed these irregularities to continue. Therefore, in addition to individual sanctions, the Court urged the current authorities to implement immediate corrective measures and ensure strict compliance with current regulations.
“The Court notes that, from the detailed analysis of the reports produced by the Audit on its various occasions, as well as from the arguments expressed by the Responsible Parties in the various defenses presented, deficiencies arise in the Internal Control System organized in the Municipality, which does not efficiently prevent circumstances such as those discussed here. Therefore, it recommends that the Municipal Authorities carry out a review of the operation of said Internal Control,” it stated.
Sotos response
The now senator defended himself against the sanction imposed by the supervisory body and gave his version of the events, stating that the incident occurred because they decided to use "better material in the work."
“The decision was made because we tendered H21 cement and after the work began, we decided to use H25 cement, which is more resistant. However, since the work was done with a better material, the Court understood that we should have tendered H25 from the beginning. That is why it fined us,” said the former mayor. |
