Report from the (Comptroller General of the Union) pointed out that an amendment of R$ 1.2 million from the (PSD-AP) was directed to an institute to carry out a project to provide ophthalmological care and supply of glasses to students in the public education network in (AP).
The conclusions are in an evaluation report on Amapá that audited the Instituto Desponta Brasil and the state’s State Department of Health (Sesa).
The audit focused on the transfer of R$1.2 million to the state of Amapá through the senator’s amendment to the 2023 General Budget of the Union. The amendment gave rise to an agreement signed between the State Department of Health and the Instituto Desponta Brasil to carry out the “Um Blink of an Eye” project. The audit was carried out between March 20 and April 17 this year.
The report highlights that in 2023 there was no legislative rule obliging the beneficiary of the special transfer to carry out an object indicated by the author of the amendment. But it highlights an ordinance that determined that, if the parliamentarian wished to indicate resources to a specific civil society organization, he should use an amendment in the defined purpose modality.
“It was identified that the senator of the Republic who authored the amendment, through a letter dated 10/17/2023, indicated to Sesa the project ‘In a blink of an eye’ as the object of the amendment”, says the text.
“The purpose of the appointment was to allocate resources to the Instituto Desponta Brasil, since this entity had carried out a project of the same name in the Federal District, in the year 2022, as stated in the work plan presented to Sesa by the Institute.”
According to the report, the cause of the irregularity was that the parliamentarian did not follow the federal rule on special transfers and also the fact that the Health Department “submitted the execution of the resources to the will of the parliamentarian without also respecting federal rules, which prohibited the indication of a private entity as beneficiary of special transfers”.
“It is noteworthy that, with the aim of reinforcing the requirement that the formalization of transfers to private non-profit entities must comply with the constitutional principles of impersonality and publicity, the most recent regulation maintained the prohibition of indicating private entities as beneficiaries of special transfers”, highlights the text.
The report also identified other problems, such as the absence of a public call and the fact that a “significant part” of the funds from the development agreement were used to contract services with people linked to the partner entity. The audit analyzed data from 16 people linked to the Institute who have, in some way, participated in the execution of the partnership, including the entity’s directors and technical support.
The data was compared with information from eleven contracts carried out by the entity under the development agreement, especially with information on the corporate structure of the contracted companies. “Thus, five contracts were identified whose relationships did not comply with the criteria adopted by the audit team”, says the text.
The report also points to nominal overpricing of R$281,138.83, approximately 38% above the total acceptable value, in the contracts carried out, which did not follow objective selection criteria.
According to the CGU, the Department of Health did not apply the control and monitoring mechanisms required by legislation, and the State Health Council did not act as an instance of social control of the partnership.
“Regarding planning, the amendment’s work plan was not adequately structured to guarantee the efficient execution of the partnership’s objective. Finally, the beneficiary entity does not provide adequate transparency in the disclosure of the resources received”, indicates the audit.
It is also mentioned the fact that there is a single disbursement date for all stages of the project execution proposed by the institute, although the standard requires the preparation of a disbursement schedule for financial transfers made in favor of the partner entity.
Other Side
The Desponta Brasil Institute reported that the information released does not include all the clarifications presented by the entity. “Since the beginning of the investigation process, all observations presented by the CGU were responded to in a timely, objective and duly substantiated manner”, he says in a note.
“Each note received supporting documentation, technical reports, execution records and other evidence that clearly demonstrate the regularity and good faith in the execution of the agreed actions.”
The institute claims to have fully executed all the services provided for in the work plan and that the execution followed the defined steps, the required quality parameters and the legal standards applicable to partnerships signed with civil society organizations.
“It is essential to clarify that the management, budget execution and supervision of resources arising from parliamentary amendments are the responsibility of the granting state body, as established by current legislation”, he continues.
“The institute reaffirms that all the resources received were applied strictly to the established public purpose, in accordance with the contracted object and the legal precepts that govern the matter”, he highlights.
Senator Lucas Barreto and the Amapá government did not comment.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
