Just over a year ago, a team of the Auditor General of the City of Buenos Aires (AGCBA, for its acronym in Spanish) crossed the 9 de Julio Avenue, to review the status of green spaces located between the street Carlos Calvo and Republic Square. Along the way, the agency noted a lack of drinking fountains, taps and irrigation in several sections. In this situation, breach of one of the companies providing service maintenance of these parks added a few irregularities. Therefore, in a report approved last March, technicians concluded that there are "several shortcomings in the control and enforcement" of existing contracts, both by the local executive and the private sector.  
The audit examined the maintenance of green spaces carried out during 2013, just before the resourced were transferred to the municipalities for this initiative, promoted by the Directorate for Green Spaces (DGEV) under the Ministry of Public Space.

The report explains that for the care of these places, in 2011 the City held a bid that had a budget of 306 million pesos. However, when the service was awarded, the final amount ended up being 41.7% higher and reached almost $ 434 million; it was to be implemented in 36 months.

Meanwhile, the City was divided into eight zones, seven of which were allocated to the private sector and the remaining was in charge of the City Government, for implementation of the scheme pre-test case of Communes. For details of this subdivision, and especially what zones corresponded to each Commune, click Download Report.

From this universe, the Audit girded its analysis, first, to Zone 1, whose scope was precisely Comunne 1 (Retiro, San Nicolas, Puerto Madero, San Telmo, Monserrat and Constitucion). The borrower of this territory was a temporary joint venture (UTE) formed by Urbaser Argentina, Transportes Olivos SA and SA Seob; on the other hand, it was included Zone 2 covering the communes 3 (Balbanera and San Cristobal), 5th (Almagro and Boedo), 6 (Caballito) and 15 (Chacarita, Villa Crespo, Paternal, Villa Ortuzar, Agricultura and Parque Chas). And in this case the company was awarded Salvatori SA Parks and Gardens.

In third place, Zone 4 was also examined, corresponding to the Comunne 8 (Soldati, Lugano and Riachuelo), which was attended by the city state. However, in this case there was also a contracted company, Urban Ecology SRL, whose duty was to specifically provide equipment and supplies for maintenance, according to the provisions of existing contracts.

"Several flaws"
The aforementioned walkthrough was made by the AGCBA on June 24 of last year and intended to relieve the execution of the "Functional Aesthetic Services Zone 1." During the technical review they observed "lack of irrigation of the side beds" of the Ave. 9 de Julio between Belgrano and Carlos Calvo. Also, they warned of several shortcomings in the corner of 9 de Julio Ave and Independencia, such as "lacking of swings in the playgrounds, as well as missing water fountains and faucets."

Moreover, it is noted that the original tender envisaged in Article 21 that the Buenos Aires State retain 3% of the cost of the contract in each area to meet the "Mayors / Guardians of the Park" Program, this was the training of those who would carry out those tasks. However, the report notes that "it does not arise from the analysis of the certificates that the retention was made.”

Also, another flaw detected is related to a breach of Article 69 of the tender document. In this case, the Ministry of Public Space City should implement a Communication Plan for the maintenance of green spaces, for the neighbors, who were both recipients of improvements and "the primary recipients of temporary discomfort arising from their jobs”, would be aware of the progress of the initiative.

The control body attached the failure of the portfolio lies in failing to require the contractors to fulfill this obligation, as were the companies that were to include the initiative in their bids, develop and implement the Communication Plan, and to allocate 0.5% of its total turnover.

Communes
In 2013, the Executive of the City ordered by decree the "transfer of functions and primary responsibilities for the maintenance of green spaces" to the communes; the assignment included until then existing contracts and budgetary amounts involved, that would be under the aegis of the Ministry of Public Management and Community Care.

In this direction, to complete its review, the AGCBA said that the Ministry of Public Space "did not issue regulatory, clarifying and necessary administrative measures for the proper implementation of the decree of transfer", i.e., the rule was there, but the Portfolio does not specify how to do it. "Meanwhile, adds the research-, the Ministry of Public Management and Community Care agreement did not attach the minutes held with each Commune, although the Intercommunal intervention Coordination Council did transfer the budgetary resources to this area."

Coexistence

But the shortcomings found are not limited to the state part of the initiative. The Audit noted that "the contractor in Zone 4 (SRL Urban Ecology) did not provide the sprinkler truck, shovel mini bob-cat, nor a hydro lift and three tractors, Kubota type. Also the pick-up Hidrogrua F100 and a dump truck as well as a Mercedes Benz tank are five (5) years old as reflected in the number of domain. Let’s not forget –the technicians add- in this area the maintenance of green spaces is carried out by the City Government itself, however it was up to the borrower to provide goods and supplies needed for those activities."

As was noted in the Audit, before the transfer to the municipalities, in the maintenance of the parks there coexisted many companies, as well as the portfolio of Public Space, in which operated the Directorate General of Green Spaces (DGEV) the government office responsible for implementing the initiative.

And how did they operate together? The City Watchdog noted the coexistence was by two books, one for Communications, in which the DG gave work orders to contractors after inspecting the green spaces; and the other Orders, completed by the firms.

At this point the AGCBA also noted shortcomings. When it asked about the Book of Order to the DG "they were not there at the time of the analysis." Then, the watchdog had to appeal to companies that delivered the material "days later."

Other findings were the "wrong labeling of Books" and the "impossibility of a chronological log." The latter occurred because there were "unnumbered order notes, notes of communication without dates" and several papers with repeated numbers.

To complete the audit, it stated that "neither has been reflected in the book of communications inspection tasks carried out by the Directorate."