91999E0845

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0845/99

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission

(7 April 1999)

Subject: Substandard work in performance of Greek public contracts

Two quarterly reports were recently published for the first half of 1998 by the Special Council for Quality Control (ESPEL) of public works concerning substandard work in the performance of public contracts for construction projects being carried out under the CSF for Greece. The percentage of substandard work (i.e. not meeting specifications) fluctuated between 25 % and 95 %; the resulting uproar then prompted the Greek authorities into promising measures to bring the quality up to standard.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Have there been any further reports by ESPEL since then and, if so, does the work still fall short of specifications and by what percentage?

2. Have the Greek authorities in fact taken the measures promised to remedy the substandard work and, if so, does the Commission consider those measures to be sufficient and satisfactory or not?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 1999)

On the basis of the information communicated by the Greek authorities, the Commission can provide the following information.

1. Between July 1998 and January 1999, ESPEL continued to submit monthly activity reports. Of 210 projects checked systematically and in depth during this period:

- 94 are in order or present minor deficiencies which will be corrected by the contractors (1st category);

- 110 suffer from major deficiencies which do not have any effect on safety but will involve higher maintenance costs; these will be deducted from the payments to the contractors concerned (2nd category);

- 6 suffer from serious deficiencies which cannot be corrected and will have to be rebuilt by the contractors at their own expense (3rd category).

2. As it had promised, the Ministry for Economic Affairs (MEN) forwards all the individual ESPEL reports which reveal defective quality to the public departments responsible for administering the projects concerned, asking them to take the action provided for by law.

Moreover, for projects in the 2nd and 3rd categories mentioned above, MEN also transmits the file to the public works inspectorate so that it can monitor the follow-up by the administrative departments. Lastly, for projects in the 3rd category, MEN automatically transmits the file to the public prosecutor.

The Commission considers that the above measures are steps in the right direction and it will in any case continue to follow the progress of this matter closely.