“Contract 717 must be implemented as soon as possible. It is necessary that the issue of security become a priority in all spheres of public life, not to mention transport, where human souls are transported, so that such an evil never, never happens again,” the former Minister of Infrastructure and Transport emphasized. Michalis Chrysochoidisduring his address to the Committee on Institutions and Transparency.

As for the features that convention 717 was bad, he replied that it was checked by the Financial Prosecutor’s Office and accepted in 2021. It was verified by the Fiscal Audit Committee in 2018, for the period 17-18, i.e. 4 years after its signing, two years after its expiration. .

“Her report National Transparency Authority regarding delays in its implementation. The reasons for the delay are very revealingly indicated in the conclusions of the control and audit bodies.

As for her Financial Control Committee, there were two conclusions. One of them was the failure to comply with the terms of the contract regarding the provision of expert services on a specific project. The studies are submitted by a contractor that does not bear the seal and signature of the Alstom Ferroviaria experience lender, i.e. the Italian Alstom. That is, the contractor brought a private contract, as required by law, and provided credit to the experience of a third party.

Thus, the contract obligated the contractor to submit studies with the stamp of an experienced lender. Very simple things and the wording of the contract, tender documents and specifications was very clear. The contractor was required to present these contracts, and it was the duty of the supervisory authority to apply the penalties to the contractor provided for in the special specifications and tender documents so that the contractor would be sanctioned in case of refusal. submit certified research on the subject of the contract. This stamp was introduced in May 2019 and was supposed to be introduced in the first months of 2015.

The second conclusion was the insufficient definition of the subject of the contract during the tender due to shortcomings in the final study, since it was prepared for three years with constant changes in the subject, due to theft, sabotage, and also due to the inability of the OSE and ERGOSE Service to check in detail 600 kilometers of the network and, above all, to check the full operability of the equipment that was on the line.”

However, Mr. Chrysochoidis noted, there were provisions in the contract. In particular, “in the contractual texts it was clearly defined that any equipment or work that becomes necessary for the full normal operation of the signaling and telecontrol, not described in the contract or arising during the implementation of the project, will be provided by the contractor at no additional charge. The contract was very clear.”

He pointed out that “the first finding of the Office of Transparency is that ERGOSE did not ensure that some studies were resubmitted in a timely manner and that they were not approved in a timely manner. The second conclusion is the impossibility of recalling telemetry devices due to the stoppage of production by manufacturing companies. Therefore, the tender documents clearly state that the contractor must install certified equipment on the line in accordance with the latest safety regulations. So that the work could be done quickly, he had provisions and reservations so that everything that the contractor found old, that is, those devices that the company had not produced for many years and the material was incompatible and outdated, he himself had to and was obliged to replace it for your account. This was his obligation. This obligation was expressly stated in the contract. Unfortunately, not everything that the contract envisaged as obligations of the contractor happened, and for this reason it all came back.”

MONKEY BEE