Aamir Lashari
ISLAMABAD: A Special Audit of the Capital Development Authority’s (CDA) expenditure on arrangements for the auction of commercial and residential plots has uncovered serious procurement and financial irregularities involving Rs16 million, including deviation from the approved procurement method, payments without mandatory verification and questionable documentation.
The audit found that although procurement through a single-tender method had been approved, the concerned formation subsequently procured goods and services from different firms through quotations without obtaining separate approval for changing the procurement method. The audit also found no adequate documentary evidence, justification or market assessment to establish that the requirements for direct contracting under Rule 42(c) of the Public Procurement Rules, 2004 had been fulfilled. The audit warned that the lack of transparency and competition increased the risk of favouritism and financial loss.
The CDA also failed to execute a formal contract agreement, while the audit noted that a Rate Running Contract would have been appropriate for recurring requirements.
The payment process came under further criticism as almost all bills and vouchers were processed and paid without mandatory verification and certification by the committee constituted to scrutinise auction expenditure. The audit said the lapse weakened financial controls and exposed the management to the risk of irregular or duplicate payments.
The audit specifically questioned Bill No. 158 dated June 15, 2026, amounting to Rs483,928, which was processed in the name of M/s Sameer Enterprises although the invoice had been submitted by another company. No documentary evidence was available to explain the discrepancy or establish a relationship between the two firms.
It also found that the Administrative Officer issued a financial sanction without approval from the Director Estate Management-II, while no record was available authorising the officer to exercise the relevant financial powers. The audit further found no detailed working to support the Rs16 million estimated cost, including market rates, rate analysis and quantity calculations.
The audit also pointed out missing records relating to the auctioneer’s approved daily rate, stock register, number and list of auction participants, and details of banners, panaflexes and streamers. The required DMA NOC/permission for their installation was also not available on record.
The audit recommended investigation and fixation of responsibility against officials responsible for the deviation from the approved procurement method, with recovery of amounts paid if the change was found to be unauthorised. It also recommended withholding the Rs4.185 million balance payment until verification and regularisation, besides assessing price reasonableness and recovering any excess payment.
The report further recommended a fact-finding inquiry into the deviation from the approved procurement method and payments made without mandatory verification and certification. It specifically noted that the PA to Director EM-II was responsible for all arrangements of the auction proceedings and may also be examined/interrogated to establish the facts of the case.
