I am a member of the Bids and Awards Committee of our office.  One year, we received a sub-allotment advice and its cash allocation together with the guidelines for the procurement of drugs and medicines for the congressional district of a particular congressman.

A pharmaceutical supplier approached me and asked me if I had already prepared a purchase request (PR) for particular supplies and medicines. He even showed me the Notice of Award for the supplies which his company was able to get.  I told him that I had already prepared it.  He was insistent on revising my PR to suit his NOA based on the “order” of the congressman.  I told him that I could not change my PR because my basis was the lists provided by our different municipalities and I was aware that these were the drugs and medicines that were appropriate for the prevailing illnesses in these particular municipalities.

I presume that this supplier gave feedback to the congressman.  The congressman called our director asking who I was and what my position was in the Regional Health Office.  He said, “Why is this fellow very stubborn?  That is my congressional district allocation and I have the right to choose any supplier who can provide drugs and medicines for my district.”

In my second encounter with the supplier, I told him to make sure that he has a NOA for the drugs that our municipalities required (based on the lists submitted) and there will be no problem for the preparation of the PR as long as he is really accredited. 

To my knowledge, the supplier again informed the congressman about my recommendation, but the congressman was still insistent.  When the congressman called again, I was asked by my regional director to talk to the congressman.  I told him that our office cannot just spend the money for the purchase of supplies which were not the priority needs of our RHUs.

I gave him an option to transfer the funds to the LGU so that it will now be the responsibility of the LGU to procure their drugs and medicines based on their identified needs.  The congressman agreed, and my regional director concurred.

Such an opinion might have opened his mind to the fact that there should be proper allocation of resources based on needs.  The identified needs should come from the end-users themselves and not from the legislators or the suppliers who try to enrich themselves, unmindful of the benefits that the community deserves to receive out of the taxes that they pay.

Discussion questions:

1. If you were the writer, how would you have handled the situation?
2. How often in your professional life do you encounter local officials who are as brazen and irresponsible?
3. How does your superior handle ‘requests’ from brazen local officials?
   
4. How effective do you think was the case writer’s method in defusing the congressman’s hanky-panky efforts?  What other bureaucratic methods could he have employed to make the congressman’s life harder (i.e., to make it more difficult for the congressman to enrich his favored supplier?)