COA tells BFP: Better to replace than repair old firetrucks
It would be more economical for the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) to replace its aging firetruck and emergency service vehicles instead of spending P45.69 million for their repair, according to the Commission on Audit (COA).
The COA, in a May 15 decision, rejected the BFP’s Aug. 7, 2014 request for clearance to exceed the repair cost limit of 30 percent of the current market value of the vehicles.
It refused to allow the continued upkeep of the aged equipment for being “practically unsound, both financially and operationally.”
In the 2014 Nationwide Partial Priority Program for Repair of Emergency Vehicles, auditors reported that 112 out of BFP’s 123 vehicles, or a whopping 91 percent of the agency’s entire fleet, were already fully depreciated and beyond economic repair.
This meant repairs for almost all vehicles would cost more than 30 percent of their current market values, the allowable threshold set by COA Circulars Nos. 85-55A (1985) and 2012-003 (2012).
Citing the case of the Ilocos Region, the COA said the repairs for 15 vehicles worth P2.556 million should only be limited to the 30-percent threshold of P766,746.88. But the BFP estimated that repairs would cost P6.229 million, which was 812.43 percent above the repair cost limit.
Such expenses also hold true for the BFP vehicles in other regions, the decision noted. Amounts to be spent on repairs of aged equipment “would be put to waste as it can be expected that in a short period of time the repaired vehicles would break down, thus, necessitating more repairs,” it pointed out.
Instead of having the vehicles “continually repaired,” the COA recommended that BFP overhaul its procurement processes to complete the refleeting. It blamed the BFP’s lack of serviceable assets on the “inefficiency in its procurement process.”
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.