During The Contract Period, the Budget for Waste in the City Increased By 116%
<p style="line-height: 20.7999992370605px;"><span style="line-height: 1.6em;">The five provider companies received nearly $ 1,150 million over four years "because of the expansion of services, price re-determination, and recognition of higher costs," says a report by the Audit of the City of Buenos Aires. The tender was due since August 2010. On the day before yesterday, the envelopes for a new contract were opened.</span></p> <div> </div>
According to the Buenos Aires Audit firms CLIBA, AESA, URBASUR, INTEGRA, AND NITIDA are responsible for carrying out urban hygiene in the City of Buenos Aires, they received an extra increase of $ 1.149.772.022 during the four years of service agreed by contract. The amount represents an increase of 116% of the original budget and does not include the extended year or the last six months in which they operated with an expired contract.
Since August 2010, the date on which the service was to be completed, the contract was extended, but "in fact" or, informally, until the competitive bidding took place. From the irregularities, which were published by the Audit in December of last year, and considering that the Buenos Aires government just yesterday began opening the envelopes to award new contractors, we need to wait and see if these observations serve to new urban sanitation management.
Meanwhile, one of the aspects highlighted by the AGCBA was that, in addition to the $ 2,140,900,129 spent for the period 2005 to 2008 inclusive, in 2009 (the extended year) urban health service had a budget of $ 1,083. 778,791.
The report, approved last year, said that the 116% increase of the budget is produced, among other things, "because of the expansion of services, price re-determination, and recognition of higher costs." This information could be directly related to another: "service-de is not stipulated, installation and maintenance of waste collection containers in the Bidding Terms and Conditions", the same that determines the tasks and characteristics of the contracts signed. When the service was started back in 2005 it was not taken into account that there would be containers on the streets that would need to be bought and installed.
Moreover, the Audit adds that firms, each in its respective area, should provide the service Differentiated Collection in all considered large waste generators, such hotels of four and five star hotels, public buildings, and Puerto Madero Corporation buildings exceeding 19 stories. It also has the Buenos Aires Executive Directorate General Cleaning (DGLIM, for its acronym in Spanish) to monitor compliance with this section of the tender. On this, the research suggests that DGLIM "does not have a unified database of routes and incorporated into the curbside collection service for local control and monitoring", and also given the provision was "less about the amount of establishments originally planned in the bidding terms and conditions, not attributable to the contractor causes.” The AGCBA says: "the total payment for a service is provided in deficit would evidence, lack of intervention by the DGLIM in control and encourage the addition of more stores."
The audit also stated that the Directorate General of Cleaning "does not have a unified and homogeneous inventory of the containers distributed in different areas."
The Centers for Collecting and Recycling Were Never Carried Out
By Bidding Terms and Conditions, the collection companies were required to build a Green Center for each assigned area. They should have places for the selection, collection, and recycling of paper, cardboard and glass discarded for subsequent sale through cooperatives.
Nevertheless, in December 2010, out of the six centers that had to be constructed before the end of service delivery, " only two were operating Green Centers", one in Retiro, and another on the street Barros Pazos 3700.
The spread of the Service
The current bid so far, program costs and advertising communication service, rules and schedules, "are the sole responsibility of the waste collection companies" who should allocate for such purposes "3% turnover". The AGCBA said that "in neither verified cases, the required percentage is reached", and exemplified with data from 2009. That year the firm in charge of Zone 1: CLIBA, billed $ 208,136,408.45, of those who had to spend $ 6.2 million to broadcast their service, but spent more than $ 4 million (1.93%). The same happened with the company that operated in Zone 4: NITTIDA. Its 2009 revenue was $ 175.8 million and, although due to use $ 5.2 million in broadcast, they allocated $ 2.8 million (1.62%).
