State Budget funds earmarked for the investment and renovation of the Faculty Hospital Motol premises
Auditing operation No. 05/06
The auditing operation was included in the Annual Audit Plan of the Supreme Audit Office (hereinafter referred to as “SAO”) for the year 2005 under No. 05/06. The auditing operation was managed and the audit conclusion drawn up by Mr. Josef Pohl, the Member of the SAO.
The aim of the audit was to examine the management with State Budget funds earmarked for the renovation and the development of the Faculty Hospital Motol premises.
The audited period covered the years 2001 and 2005 (to August) as well as previous periods in certain cases of relevant connections.
The audited bodies were the Ministry of Health (hereinafter referred to as “MH”) and the Faculty Hospital Motol (hereinafter referred to as “FH Motol”).
Following findings resulted from the audit:
The MH has duty to examine the conceptional and functional solutions of the constructions in relation to real needs and priorities of future users and to evaluate their efficiency and the correspondence with the department conception. As the budget chapter administer the MH has to control the effective and economic usage of the State Budget funds. For the performance of these activities the MH has not elaborated basic conceptional and methodological documents. The FH Motol and the MH demands for the reconstruction of the whole premises in total value approximately CZK 5 billion solved the government by its resolution in which it approved the funds only for the 1. phase, e.g. the elimination of the critical situation in the Children's part of the Faculty Hospital Motol (hereinafter referred to as “CFH”) in the value of approximately CZK 1 billion.
The MH did not comply with the Decree No. 40/2001 Coll., on participation of the state budget in financing of property reproduction programmes. The MH did not elaborate the programme documentation, which would set particular aims and would specify unambiguous demands on the elimination of the critical situation in the CFH premises, and would specify timetable of the construction preparation and implementation. The MH did not secure the elaboration of the investment plan, which would set the amount of funds and would contain other necessary data for the construction implementation. The MH did not present relevant documents for the government decision making about the constructionally and financially demanding projects. The MH did not unambiguously specify the subject and the aim of the “elimination of the critical situation in the CFH premises” in order to allow government objectively make decision about the amount of State Budget funds. The government of the Czech Republic make decision about the financing by its resolution No. 213 of 10 March 2003, by which the government approved the intention to quickly eliminate the critical situation in the CFH premises within the years 2004-2006 with State Budget participation in the amount CZK 1,069 million.
The MH and the FH Motol had different statements concerning the material and functional definition of the construction during the preparatory and even in following phases of the investment project “The elimination of the critical situation in the CFH premises”. The MH demanded the elimination of the critical situation of the all object, e.g. the CFH wings A, B, C, without the provisioning of the interior equipment, health technique and without the implementation of the underground corridors, the deliveries not relying to the elimination of the critical situation. But FH Motol preferred the reconstruction and the modernisation of the CFH premises only in the wing C.
The MH and the FH Motol did not respect basic principles set by the legal regulations for the administration of the investment projects. The MH approved the investment plan (which materially and functionally define the construction and includes the basic economic and technical data about the implementation and financing of the action for the decision making of the investor and the programme administrator) even after the working out the project documentation for the building permit, and even during the public procurement for the technological part supplier. There were retrospectively incorporated the data arising from the following phases of the investment project into the investment plan, which is one of the first documents the investor has for the substantial decision making. The result of the incorrect procedure was the protraction of the preparatory phase, wrong determination of the needed funds amount, complicated course of the tender, extension of the construction implementation deadline and the increasing of the construction budget costs.
The investor changed the conception of the solution of the energy centre in the later phases of the investment project as the result of the insufficiently elaborated preparatory phase and namely wrong setting of needed funds. The building that should be built as a new building will not be constructed and the existing building will be reconstructed. A new technology will be incorporated into the reconstructed building. The investor is implementing the solution, which the author of the study and project documentation called as realizable with difficulties. The project documentation elaborated for the new building of the energy centre therefore cannot be used.
The placing documentation for the tender indicates to the fact that the wings A and B will not be reconstructed. It is clear that the funds in total amount CZK 1,069 million earmarked for the reconstruction by the government resolution No. 213 of 10 March 2004 will be used only for the wing C including the energy centre, and thus the government resolution will not be fulfilled.