The Auditor General of the City of Buenos Aires (AGCBA, for its acronym in Spanish) noted the importance of "planning works carried out in educational institutions in order to, firstly, ensure the feasibility of the projects and, also, to optimize resources and expenses."

It is that, for example, the audit noted that the Directorate General of School Infrastructure (DGIES) "hired in three different jobs the firm Ernesto Tarnousky SA despite having several defaults as documented inspection work."

The report, which was evaluated in 2013, states that the firm "began to default on their contractual obligations in the work of the school in Sarmiento 2832, back in August 2012, and continued to do so for the rest of 2012 and early 2013."

However, the Department awarded another work in Callao 450. Only in February 2013 "a fine was applied for not complying with the contract of a third work in Esmeralda 285." Later, it was fined twice and the contract ended because it rescinded.

By canceling the agreement, and due to the risks generated that students live together within the construction site, "they had to move to another building while a new contractor job ended."

Another case in point is the work planned for Isauro Arancibia and Adult School 2000, located in Paseo Colón 1318. As detailed in the AGCBA "it began without locating the School Museum occupied an area on the ground floor." Furthermore, the implementation took so long that "while the ground floor and the basement were empty, the second floor had 200 kids, 38 children and 40 workers between faculty and staff."

In turn, "the only access is by stairs, no ramp or other alternative." In case of an emergency evacuation it would be "difficult."

About accessibility, the AGCBA noted that five of the nine cases evaluated "did not comply with the law of physical accessibility for people with special needs."

In two very similar works, aimed at returning their facilities accessible, the Watchdog found "substantial differences in which they were paid more than $ 300,000 and the other $164,000 despite the fact that it was built eight months later."

But back to the timeline, the audit found that in 60% of cases evaluated "the terms granted expanded by 150% over the provisions in the original contracts, evidence of poor planning in the work."
For example, jobs in Special Education School No. 34 "were planned in 300 days straight, but had four setbacks, of 516 days, totaling 816 days."

Another of the recommendations made by the AGCBA is "projected respond to the needs of those who will use it." It is that in the Normal No.9 "central sector scheduled no natural lighting and a lying of inadequate light."

At School No. 15 "the only health that was made for the new classrooms on the third floor are particularly health and size of the device is unsuitable for small children."

At No. 8, located at Homer 2159 "no structural reinforcements that requires all construction is anticipated over a stream." Consequently, "it had to demolish part of what has been done and resolved situations poorly," as openings for the placement of the windows, which were provided at 1 meter from the floor and at the demolished the counter floor They were more than 1.2 meters.

Finally, with regard to the incorporation of new technologies, the AGCBA recommended that "users are trained to optimize their use" since "they observed that 100% of the staff was not capable of responding to the daily difficulties presented."