GEORGE TOWN, Aug 24 — The Malaysian Marine Department has paid RM47,418 for 100 overalls that failed to meet specifications listed in its procurement contract, the 2019 Auditor-General’s Report (Series One) revealed today.
The report found that the overalls for the Maritime Transport Training Institute and Maritime Safety Division of the department had failed to meet specifications of the tender contract.
“The receiving officer had only referred to the delivery note and the department failed to issue a rejection letter or a warning letter to the contractor when it found the overalls do not meet specifications of the contract,” it said.
It said the department had proceeded with payment for the supply on November 30 in 2018 despite the overalls failing to meet contract specifications.
The specifications of the overalls that differed from the contract included the lack of reflectors on the front of the overalls, the lack of a Malaysian flag on the left sleeve and the lack of an OSPAR logo on the back, among others.
The report found that the receiving officer had failed to check the compliance to specifications listed in the contract before issuing payments to the contractor which led to losses for the department.
The department explained that its receiving officer had accepted the delivery of the overalls based on the delivery note.
It further added that it will inform the contractor on their failure to meet specifications for the overalls and that they will be required to amend the overalls in order to meet the specifications listed in the contract.
The report also noted that the supply of replacement parts and equipment to combat oil spillage worth RM187,160 were not delivered to the six locations indicated in the contract which led to a delay of the supplies being delivered to its intended destinations.
It said the Traffic Management And Aids To Navigation Division had distributed the parts which took between 41 to 353 days from the date the supplies were received.
“The delay in delivery incurred costs involved in the delivery, and if the goal was to distribute the equipment on its own, the department should not list the delivery requirements in contract so that the tender amount offered by the contractor would be lower,” it said.
It recommended that the department take action against the officer in charge or the contractor for failing to comply with the delivery requirements as stated in the contract.
“The department has to impose a fine or made a deduction in payment to the contractor for failing to deliver the supplies as per the conditions in the contract,” it said.
The Marine Department explained that the parts were only distributed to the respective locations based on a needs basis.
It claimed that the parts could be used as a back-up plan and that Klang Valley was a strategic location to monitor the movement of assets and parts.
It also claimed that the delay in delivering the parts were due to the schedule of the officer in charge as only one officer in the headquarters is responsible for delivering the parts to all branches.
