1. Audit findings and opinions

1.1. Planning and research of the procurements

1.1.1. In the course of the audit on goods and services procurements carried out by the Public Security Forces Affairs Bureau of MacaoTN (hereafter referred to as DSFSM according to the Portuguese abbreviation), the Commission of Audit verified that the DSFSM had no integrated planning for its large procurements, which was detrimental to execution effectiveness and efficiency. The Commission of Audit believes that without a preliminary planning to control the resources to be invested would allow never ending of public money spending on studies and upgrades after the acquisition is made, which is contrary to the principle of prudence in financial management. Undertaking integrated planning before the acquisition is indeed an excellent method to avoid the referred risk.

1.1.2. DSFSM didn’t make public in good time about the progress and the concluding date of the acquisitions with strong impact on the population interests, which not only reduces the transparency of the processes but also hinders social supervision.

1.1.3. The audit findings revealed that DSFSM wasn’t rigorous enough in various areas in its preliminary studies, affecting the thoroughness and comprehensiveness in defining the objectives of the acquisitions, the factors and analyses to take into account (e.g. study visits programming and defining technical specifications), the knowledge on products evolution trends, the definition of how detailed the specifications in the tender documents should be and the confirmation of the information presented by tenders, which in turn led to frequent alterations during the execution, to more administrative resources being spent and to longer periods for the goods and services to be acquired.

1.1.4. DSFSM didn’t demand the suppliers to provide all required documents as listed in the tender documents, which led to alterations after the adjudication. The fact was revealing that DSFSM lacked rigour and vigour in supervising the suppliers in respect to contract compliance.

1.1.5. The audit found out that DSFSM used the remaining funds of an acquisition to buy a quantity of the product higher than the original authorization. In so doing, DSFSM contravened a principle in the good governance of the public finances which requires “specific funds for specific purposes”. DSFSM should have freed the remaining amount of the allocated fund and returning it to the Finance Services Bureau.

1.2. Launch of public tenders and award of contracts

DSFSM stated in the public tender documents the evaluation criteria, which included the requirements and the respective percentage values. However, in the course of evaluation, DSFSM introduced an array of details, which reflects its incapability to define with precision the evaluation criteria during the preparation of the public tender documents and, as a result, it was forced to make adjustments afterwards. The Commission of Audit is of the opinion that once inserted in the tender documents, the evaluation criteria should be observed in the subsequent proposals evaluation and shouldn’t be amended freely.

1.3. Organization and coordination of the acquisitions

1.3.1. DSFSM had no clear written instructions regarding uniforms and related articles and this situation allowed introduction of alterations depending on when different opinions are expressed. Also, DSFSM had no mechanism for periodically collecting the most recent opinions of the users as indicators, which weakens the scientific value of the studies. On the other hand, there was no fixed procedure governing the equipment substitution, leading to simultaneous usage of new and old uniforms and related articles, which is detrimental to the image of unity of the Security Forces. It’s the opinion of the Commission of Audit that DSFSM should try to identify the working characteristics and needs of the various parts involved, and on which basis tries to prepare a complete set of written rules that should be effective and reasonable.

1.3.2. When auditing the two procurements, the Commission of Audit verified that both the DSFSM and the Security Forces insisted on their respective viewpoint on the model and reasons for the acquisitions and wouldn’t budge. The result was a delay of more than two years, from the date on which the requisitions were first tendered. The Commission of Audit is of the opinion that the DSFSM and the Security Forces should commit themselves to establish a communication mechanism, adequate and comprehensive, which is able to solve situations of opinions divergence on acquisitions.

2. Suggestions of the Commission of Audit

2.1. Any large scale procurement must be preceded by an integrated plan, in which the different phases of the procurement and each and every task to be executed during the successive phases and the needed resources (e.g. time, persons, money, etc) would be clearly laid out.

2.2. During the research and planning, information on the progress and on the probable date of conclusion of the works should be publicly released in good time.

2.3. Preliminary analyses and studies should be conducted rigorously in order to avoid alterations after adjudication or contract signing. Concretely:

2.4. To strictly supervise the delivery of goods and services by the suppliers in rigorous accordance with the terms of the contracts.

2.5. To comply with the principle “specific funds for specific purposes” and releasing and returning the unused funds to the Finance Services Bureau.

2.6. Evaluation criteria should be defined according to what would be required from the proposals during the evaluation phase and they should be included during the preparation of the documents for the public tendering.

2.7. Proposals should be evaluated according to the evaluation methods and criteria stated in the public tender documents.

2.8. DSFSM should set up an adequate mechanism for a coordinated management of the various works, which should include:

2.9. Together with the Security Forces, DSFSM should strive for setting up an integrated and adequate communication mechanism for solving opinions divergences that would emerge in the procurement processes. The mechanism should include:

--------------------------------