To carry forward the port activity, "the General Ports Administration (AGP, for its acronym in Spanish) budgets high amounts -for works- an investment that it does not use", this causes a "diminishment of the quantity and quality of the services provided." So says a report of the Audit Office (AGN, for its acronym in Spanish).

As explained in the report adopted in April of this year, the AGP budgeted for 2009 almost 52 million pesos for the completion of works at the port of Buenos Aires, but executed only 18% of that money. In 2008 it used the 9% expected in 2007 to 18% in 2006 and 8.1% in 2005 no more than 5.5%.

Currently, the works that AGP currently has –a State Society, which manages and controls the commercial ports of Argentina can be grouped into three categories: "to improve water, rail, road access and optimize safety conditions navigation and increase the maintenance of infrastructure, buildings and other port facilities. "

Within these tasks, dredging and marking, consisting of clean sediment to increase the depth of the waterway and have a proper floating signaling, "These are the most important obligations which the AGP must face." But the report highlights that two agreements to carry out the work with the National Waterways (DNVN) in 2003 and in 2009, the inspection agency has detected that "the volumes executed do not respond for the intended despite having signed "agreements. That is, the estimated amount of work was not performed. Faced with this situation, "Audit ports systematically resorted to additional hiring," said the Watchdog.

AGN added that "the failure of the DNVN is systematic" and is caused largely by the condition of the equipment (vessels and naval artifacts) which provides for the works. This situation ensures the Audit "the AGP is aware" and therefore "is a predictable fact to avoid direct contracts". The report also notes that, although the last agreement concluded "the equipment is identified committed" to carry out the works, "is based on an inventory of 2001, which was not updated."

Access

As for the works to improve rail access, "the most important is what is being done in the Port of Buenos Aires to establish interfaces between land transport and water" and so "to strengthen the competitiveness of the economy." But the analysis shows that "between approval of the tender and the beginning of the work 1072 days passed," which amounts to a little more than three years.

Work began in February 2009, but the work "stopped in September 2010 with an increase of 22.2%." Upon closing of the audit (December 2010), "there was a court case initiated by the Belgrano Cargas, which denounced the usurpation of land and railways preventing the movement of the railway and the continuation of the work."

Channels

As for dredging, the control body noted that during 2007 it had executed 51% of cubic meters estimated for that year, while in 2008 was 60% and in 2009 39%, down markedly for the last year taken.

Work on the adequacy of the channels North and Access to the Port of Buenos Aires "were awarded by private treaty, in 2006, the company UTE Servimagnus SDC DO BRASIL SA ROWING SA". By the time elapsed between the offer and the award of the work and the volume of sediments to extract time (which was higher than expected) the contract increase of 34 million pesos plus VAT to 49 million more taxes. The contractor itself was the one that performed the analysis "that it turned out that the magnitude of dredging run was 54% more than expected by the AGP," a difference that was recognized by the Administration of posts and that is reflected in the price end of the play. According to the AGN this "evidences inadequacies in previous tasks surveying to determine the volumes to extract."

Master Plan

Another of the main observations carried out the audit in relation to works is that "there is no plan detailing objectives, activities, deadlines, amounts and responsible so that monitoring can be carried out and evaluate results." This task is in charge of the Engineering Department, but the AGN states that "the information that was submitted to the auditors was not of a work project."