The Attorney General’s Office brought charges against Jaime José Garcés Garcíaan official of Aguas del Cesar, for committing a very serious disciplinary offense. Jaime José Garces He was supervisor of the “technical, administrative, financial and environmental audit contract for the supply and installation of micrometers in the urban area of the municipality of The Jagua of Ibirico“, which he signed Aguas del Cesar for $137 million in 2017.
Jaime José Garces He would have failed in his work as a supervisor, which allowed the contractor to collect more resources than he was entitled to.
Context: Attorney General’s Office investigates the manager and another director of Aguas del Cesar
CONTEXT
The chosen contractor included the multiplication factor box within the economic proposal. He multiplier factor refers to the payment of severance pay, annual bonuses, social security, ICBF, Family Compensation Fund, pension, medicine, among other benefits, that had to be paid to the workers that the contractor would look for to carry out the audit.
However, the auditor ‘cheated’ and hired his workers to provide services so as not to pay social benefits, although he had received a budget from Caesar’s waters. Therefore, the multiplier factor had to be equal to 0 and not 1.99, as established by the contractor. That ‘little trick’ allowed the contractor to keep 26.7 million pesos, according to a report from the General Comptroller.
The Attorney General’s Office considered “that the server under investigation (Jaime José Garces) allegedly did not adopt the monitoring and control actions aimed at verifying compliance with the obligations contracted by the contractor, since if it had done so, it would have perceived that the contractor failed to comply with what was offered in its economic proposal by formalizing its personnel under a contract for the provision of services. services and not by employment contract.”
For this reason, the official was reproached for “not exercising appropriate monitoring of contractual execution, did not adequately audit the costs of the contract, activity that was part of administrative monitoringfinancial and accounting of the same”.