Animal clinic deal shrouded in ‘lack of transparency’

Auditors could not find the evaluation report justifying the previous Nationalist government’s decision to select Centru San Frangisk as the operators of an animal after-care clinic. 

According to the National Audit Office report, the former Ministry for Resources and Rural Affairs under George Pullicino had received four submissions after issuing a call for expressions of interest in 2009 for the running of an animal clinic.  

However, the auditors could only locate the signed agreement between the government and the winning bidder, and not the evaluation report justifying the government’s selection of the winning bidder. 

“This is indicative of a lack of transparency that could lead to inefficient spending of public funds,” the audit report said. 

Moreover, according to the agreement, the winning bidder had offered to provide treatment to animals “at the current market prices” without quoting any actual prices. 

“No comfort could be drawn from the fact that, at least, the most economical offer was selected,” the audit report said. 

According to the original agreement between the government and San Frangisk Clinic, the clinic was bound to pay for the medication and rehabilitation of stray animals brought in for treatment by the Animal Welfare Directorate. The Animal Welfare Directorate was similarly bound to pay for the medical treatment of pets brought to the clinic by animal welfare officers. 

However, on the same date that the government and the clinic signed this agreement, they also signed a “contradicting” memorandum of understanding that partially waived the clinic’s obligation to provide free treatment to stray animals. According to this MoU, the clinic was obliged to issue a bill to the Animal Welfare Directorate for medical treatment costs, excluding doctors’ fees, that it had rendered to stray animals. 

Since the auditors could not trace the evaluation report confirming the selection of the winning bidder, they could not establish whether the government had taken the cost of medicines and other treatment into consideration. 

To make matters worse, the auditors could not find any mechanism to verify that all the medicines listed by the clinic in their invoices to the government had actually been used to medicate sick animals. Although their medicine invoices included details of the animal treatment, the auditors could not find any proof that such treatment actually took place. 

When the auditors managed to retrieve a copy of an undated medicine price list, they found that the prices on that list did not tally with the prices on the sampled invoices. 

“It could not be established whether payment of invoices to the clinic were fair and correct,” the audit report said. “In the absence of internal controls that validate the treatment, medicines, and other consumables used for the respective animals, there is no guarantee that overcharging is not occurring.” 

At the time of writing, George Pullicino could not be reached for comment. 

This report is not the first to outline irregularities in agencies which previously fell under George Pullicino ministry’s responsibility. In 2012, the Auditor General raised several points of concern with regard to government’s waste agency Wasteserv Malta.  

An audit of capital and recurrent expenditure incurred by Wasteserv Malta Ltd revealed “long delays and substantial cost variations on capital projects”. 

The Auditor General said that lack of transparency and non-compliance with procurement regulations were also noted, especially regarding sub-contracted labour. He also highlighted the inadequacy of the overall internal controls as a major concern.