STATEMENT

We’re still  scratching our heads
On DepEd’s response to allegations of overpriced medical and dental supplies, anti-lice shampoo

After three months, the Department of Education (DepEd) has finally gathered their wits and came up with an answer to our inquiry regarding the price discrepancies in the agency’s procurement of citronella shampoo and medical supplies. In a news report by Inquirer’s Philip Tubeza today, DepEd officials claimed that there was no overpricing as they put premium on quality over quantity. We would not be engaging in a tit-for-tat with the agency as they seem to be missing the point of our inquiry. Rather, we urge the agency to delve deeper into the issue. They may have come up with an explanation with regard to overpricing, but the core issues remain: transparency and irregularity in the agency’s bidding process, and the seriousness of the project in addressing the medical needs of the students. The price may be right but the process isn’t.

Why were there drastic and incredible changes in the item descriptions in the three bidding documents? In 2007, DepEd’s Bids and Awards Committee I (BAC I) called for eligible bidders for the supply and delivery of disposable dental needles, otoscopes (Php1,000,000 for 500 sets), citronella shampoo (Php900,000 for 150,000 sachets)  and other items. In an invitation to bid (rebid) issued on August 3, 2008, the number of Citronella Shampoo to be procured was changed from 150,000 sachets to 75,000 sachets, but the budget for these items was still Php900,000. In another bid bulletin issued on August 22, 2008, the number of citronella shampoo to be procured was changed from 500 to 75 sets, still with the same allocation of 1 million pesos. Based on these changes, DepEd seems to be setting rock-bottom prices for these goods but in the end, they purchase items at a high or higher price.

On the issue of overpricing, DepEd cannot yet say that it doesn’t overprice when the bidding documents clearly show otherwise. For instance, included in the invitation to bid were P125,000 pieces of disposable dental needs priced at P11 each. Yet, other companies  only offer them at P2.80 to P4.75. What is DepEd’s excuse for this one?

In the same report, DepEd officials also stated that the citronella shampoo sachets have yet to be bought. During the plenary interpellation of the Education department’s budget, however, DepEd said that the shampoo and otoscopes have already been purchased but have yet to be delivered. Why such conflicting statements? The objective of the project under question is to improve the condition of our students. As DepEd itself stated, almost 8 million school children were affected by pediculosis in 2000. If the agency is indeed serious in addressing these concerns,  the sachets of citronella shampoo and otoscopes could have reached our students by now. Moreover, we ask DepEd, can 75 sets of otoscopes and 75,000 sachets of citronella shampoo address the medical needs of millions of school children? Such quantity can hardly make a dent especially in the face of worsening health conditions of our students.

In light of the unresolved instant noodles and textbook scams, these discrepancies are deeply concerning and confusing for the public who only wish for DepEd to effectively implement health programs and projects and look after the welfare of public school children. While we push for higher budgetary allocation for the department, we also want DepEd to intelligently use its meager budget by conducting transparent and efficient bidding processes, and launching programs that our students needed the most.

We can only scratch our heads over DepEd’s half-baked answers.

-Kabataan Party-list Rep. Raymond “Mong” Palatino