The “Water + Work" plan aims to supply drinking water in low-income sectors of Buenos Aires. Meanwhile, the "Sewer + Work" plan seeks to perform works of extension of sewage. Both used "unskilled" labor and are part of the Comprehensive Plan for Environmental Sanitation (PISA, for its acronym in Spanish). However, the analysis by the General Audit Office in 2013, found irregularities in the work emerged, for example, significant "differences between physical and financial progress of the works".

These programs are carried out by Water and Sanitation Argentina (AySA), with funding from ACUMAR. The method used was that AySA signed an agreement with the Municipality to build the works and in turn train those who would develop those jobs. In turn, those who work in cooperatives should become registered at the National Institute of Cooperatives and Social Economy.

AySA sends money to the municipalities to fund the works and is responsible for inspecting them and carrying out the accounting to the municipalities in technical audits. The latter are those that "cooperatives are paid according to the progress of the works".

There are cases in which "100% of the funds were executed but jobs are done only by 82%," like in La Matanza that sought to link aqueducts.

There are other areas in which the work is finished but "the economic gains far exceed the stipulated value". Eight are the works that match this category. One of the most prominent is the economic advancement of 237% in Lanus in the Water + Work plan and in the town of Ezeiza with over spending 203% of the budget.

In the party of Esteban Echeverria "it had two works to tender but already recorded economic progress". In Lomas de Zamora, work for Sewage Pumping Station "they were rescinded with economic advance of 21% but a physical correlate almost nil 5%".

As for the deadlines the audit found "significant" delays. In the Sewage Pump Station Luis Guillon, "times ranged from 240 days to 853." In the municipality of Berazategui, for example, "the 730 days had to do the works one went to 1668." In this case, the AGN said the change of the contract term was asked three times and among the causes include "the necessary incorporation of additional work not covered in due course, the problems that arose as a result of the climate and affecting in the days working" among other issues.

The auditors also found works in which "the amount of work significantly expands" as can be seen in the following table:
For these reasons the Audit recalled "the importance of inspection functions because it is the only way to certify the quality and progress of tasks". AySA was who should have performed these tasks.

In addition it should audit the project bank account and all accounting and financial aspects related to project financing. However, "from reading internal audit reports does not arise financial analysis which considers the actions of the project bank account or the financial aspects of implementation".