“Firstly, as stipulated by our legal framework and especially by Law 4368/16 (Article 96) which instituted the assistance of the Armed Forces in the management of the refugees – immigrants crisis, the Ministry of National Defence was called to assist in a difficult occasion for the country, while in the law it is particularly described that the Ministry of National Defence is permitted, deviating from any other provision (meaning apart from its mission), to proceed to all the necessary actions to cover the needs of the refugees – immigrants pertaining to lodging, board, transportations and healthcare.
At the same time, the legislator, acknowledging the nature of the needs that the Ministry would be called to cover, provided for the capability of signing contracts through the procedure of negotiation, without issuing a declaration of contest, which is a procedure existing in the law which is in force for supplies (Law 4412/16 – In force from Aug 16).
It is reminded that the participation of the Ministry of National Defence took place in a period when the country’s inclusion in Schengen Area was at stake, so through my orders we set in motion and brought off within the set goals, under strict time limits, the building of the 5 relocation camps on the islands and the two relocation camps in the mainland.
Since the beginning of the Ministry of National Defence engagement, orders were given to the Ministry’s competent authorities, on one hand for the establishment of an operational instrument within the structure of the Armed Forces which would secure operational function of the centres and relocation camps and on the other hand the adoption of a funding mechanism in cooperation with the Ministry of Finance, so as to immediately cover the arising needs without burdening our Ministry’s budget (according to the stipulations of the law) due to the substantial cuts which took place in the previous years (apart from the 50% cut when compared to 2009). We also tried to cooperate with the competent Agencies of the European Union so as to make every possible effort in order to “replenish” the relevant credits, whenever possible.
The result of the above actions, was to establish at an operational level the Central Coordination Centre and the Local Coordination Centres for the Management of the Refugee Crisis, while at a financial level the Grant Agreements were signed immediately with the European Union without mediators, in the context of Emergency Assistance.
The Ministry of National Defence provided for the 5 signed Grant Agreements with the European Union without mediators through the Emergency Assistance-EMAS of the Asylum, Migration & Integration Fund-AMIF and the Internal Security Fund-ISF of a total budget approximately 100 million Euros, of which two (2) for the period 1-2-2016 to 31-7-2016, two (2) for the period 1-08-2016 to 28-2-2017 (one of them pertained to the mainland and took an extension for certain structures up until 31-07-2017) and one for the period 01-09-2017 to 28-02-2018, from which an amount of approximately 90 million Euros has been spent, through the mechanism of audit and submission of expenses, in the context of the Grant Agreements directly with EMAS, as mentioned above.
Apart from the above, aiming to further replenish the credits provided from the State Budget and consequently to minimise its burdening with expenses related to the refugees – immigrants issue, we strived to include the aforementioned expenses made by the bodies of the Ministry of National Defence and which were not included in any other jointly funded programme (EMAS) to other jointly funded programmes (75% of adopted public expense with EU funding) through the National Programmes of the Asylum, Migration & Integration Fund – AMIF and the Internal Security Fund – ISF.
In that context, the bodies of the Ministry of National Defence submitted to the Ministry of Economy and Development and especially to the Competent Authority (Special Service for the Coordination and Management of the Programmes for the AMIF and the ISF), expense details for the period 01/01/2014-30/09/2016 amounting to 59.468.475,76 Euros, in the context of relevant Calls issued by the competent Authority of the Ministry of Economy and Development, with the largest part of the said sum pertaining to the Call for “The enhancement of the capability of land, floating and airborne assets to respond for the surveillance – patrol of the borders and the protection and rescue of human life” amounting approximately to 57 million Euros.
With regards to the procedure of the relevant funds’ absorption, it should be noted that the competent bodies of the General Staffs are responsible for the contests and supplies and they conduct the relevant procedures according to the current institutional framework (Law 4270/14, Law 4368/16, Law 4375/16, Law 4412/16, Presidential Decree 80/16 etc).
The expenses, after their audit by the competent Audit Services of the corresponding bodies and the Commissioner’s Service of the Court of Auditors in the Ministry of National Defence (where there was a request / provision for precautionary – pre – contractual audit by the relevant provisions of the legislation), are also audited by an external certified audit company (certified auditors), which is selected through contest, with all of the above audits securing legality, regularity and the capability to select them, as well as maintain the principles of proper financial management. It is additionally reminded that the competency and audit of the aforementioned expenses are conducted repressively by the Court of Auditors.
At this point it is deemed necessary to take into consideration the reports of the auditors – accountants from the first four Grant Agreements entered with the EU, where the percentages of the selection capability of the expenses submitted to the EU exceed 99% (pertinent certificates are attached), while it is once more noted that the auditing companies which undertook the auditing duty were selected through a proper contest procedure by the Ministry of National Defence.
Regarding publication, the actions pertaining to contest procedures are posted on DIAVGEIA and the sites of the General Staffs, while for the participation of the Ministry of National Defence a press release is issued on a weekly basis by HNDGS (available on the site of HNDGS and the sites of the General Staffs) about the assistance of the Armed Forces, with free access to all European citizens.
Regarding the transition procedure of the funding from the credits of the Regular Budget at the Jointly Funded Public Investments Programme (National Programme through the Competent Authority of the Ministry of Economy and Development) the following are noted:
The Competent Authority of the Ministry of Economy and Development has issued the following calls for funding inclusion:
Call for 45 million € (Final 16 million € for the budget) pertaining to board and cleaning services and other expenses (maintenance, Public Utility Organisations etc) until 30/05/2018 (extension to 30/11/2018 for some actions), in the context of which the beginning of funding has been achieved for some actions, while in other cases the pertinent contest procedures are in development.
Call for 3 million € for unaccompanied under – aged individuals, which is in audit stage of the tender documents by the Competent Authority for the commencement of the relevant contest procedures.
Call for 15 million € for the upgrade of the Reception and Identification Centres, for which preliminary actions of materialisation are conducted for the proposal by the Ministry of National Defence (drafting of studies etc), while especially for the upgrade of the sewage system of Moria, which is included in the particular proposal, the assistance of the Constructions Studies Unit is underway, so as to speed up the pertinent procedures.
Call for 63 million €, pertaining to the coverage of needs of board –cleaning – function of the 5 Reception and Identification Centres for 12 months, in the context of which (examination of legality of tender documents by the Competent Authority) the pertinent contest procedures are in development or processed so as to lead to the signing of contracts which will last for 12 months.
It is easily understood that in cases where there is cooperation – synergy of more than one Public Bodies, the procedures cannot be expedited in the same way and manner as through the independent function of an Organisation.
Apart from the above, a special mention should be made to the board contracts, which are extensively mentioned. In particular:
From the first moment the Armed Forces assistance was institutionalised during the refugees crisis, instructions were issued for the preparation of the tender documents at a joint inter – service level by a competent formed committee, as much for the negotiation without declaration procedure, as for the contests leading to greater duration framework agreements (apart from Officers specialised in public supplies, doctors and dieticians also participated in the said committee for the drafting of special menus for infants, pregnant women, diabetics etc).
The said plans of tender documents for contests aimed to assist the competent Assigning Authorities of the General Staffs in the conduct of the pertinent contest procedures.
The contest procedures followed regarded open contests and negotiation procedures without publication of the contest’s declaration and without direct assignments.
Despite the fact that in many cases negotiation procedures were followed without the publication of the contest’s declaration, the General Staffs in the context of transparency and equal treatment of the interested parties, posted the said documents for the call of interest, on DIAVGEIA and their other websites, so that anyone wishing to participate would be free to do so.
This is a procedure repeated regularly (usually on a monthly basis), so any arguments regarding the element of surprise or lack of preparation time for the submission of the participation proposal, are groundless.
Despite the legislation’s stipulations for the capability to sign contracts after the negotiation procedure, without publication of the contest’s declaration, all of the General Staffs made an effort, from the beginning, to sign agreements of duration greater than 30 days (usually annual) in the context of open contests.
In particular:
HAGS published an open contest for the coverage of board requirements for 43 Structures on 28/07/16 (islands included) approximately amounting to 84 million €, which was however cancelled on 20/10/17 due to objections, arising judiciary battles etc. It has not been repeated since then (Fall of 2017) and efforts are being made for contests of three – month and annual duration through the jointly funded resources.
HNGS published an open contest for 7 structures approximately amounting to 10 million € on 22/03/16, which was successful on 13/02/17.
HAFGS published two open contests on 04/07/16 and 27/09/16 for ten structures approximately amounting to 10 million €, which were later cancelled, due to the transportation of people to other structures under another General Staff, or due to their transportation to the FULL CASH system (provision of money instead of food to the refugees – immigrants).
As can be understood, despite the stipulations of the legislation regarding modifications of the contracts in force, which were always taken into consideration, the phenomenon was so intense and the nature of the expense so rigid and so special that sometimes the stipulations were extremely difficult to be followed and especially on the islands where the pressure and the numbers are fluid, so the need called for the corresponding mode of action.
Also we must not forget that we refer to the Greek market, meaning a limited market particularly on the islands, where the suppliers are few, while there are also cases where the competition seemed to work initially but we later had joint ventures of antagonists claiming together the contracts, an element out of the sphere of influence of the Armed Forces.
Another important element is that while the above took place, the legislative framework for public contracts was fundamentally modified (Law 4412/16) and therefore, in a change of such scale, the appropriate time is required for the Bodies of the Public Sector to adapt.
In particular, in the case of contracts of board on islands under the jurisdiction of HAGS, the following should be noted:
Since the beginning of the engagement of the Ministry of National Defence and HAGS in particular in the refugees – immigrants issue and particularly in these people’s board, the need to move to a steady mode of signing contracts after the first months was immediately recognised and the procedure with the aforementioned legislative framework was imperatively applied.
Hence, immediately after the recognition of this need, a tender document was drafted and an open public contest was published (62/2016) on 28/07/2016 (ΑΔΑ:ΩΛΝΕ6-ΣΩΓ) for a total of 43 structures of islands and mainland under the responsibility of HAGS and it amounted to 84 million €.
The said contest was unsuccessful and was finally cancelled after multiple submitted objections and prejudicial appeals.
It should be stressed that the aforementioned contest had been declared despite the intense reactions of the mainly local societies and local businesses, claiming that they were indirectly excluded from the contests (based on the terms regarding ISO, certificates etc required by the provisions of the current legislation). These reactions were expressed not just by the local bodies but also by bodies of the ruling parties.
After the cancellation of the said contest (20/10/2017) and in the framework of the effort for the inclusion of all these expenses in a jointly funded programme through a call by the Competent Authority (Ministry of Economy and Development) we are in constant cooperation with the said Service and great efforts are made by all the engaged bodies to promote the provision of board at the 5 Reception and Identification Centres of the Greek islands through long – term regular / steady procedures, meaning through open contest for a 12 – month contract.
Currently the tender document is at the final stage of approval for the redeclaration of the open contest of board with a twelve – month duration through resources funding from the jointly funded Public Investments Programme.
Apart from the above, the above reasons may not be enough for some people regarding the meticulousness / haste with which the pertinent procedures take place, something which often happens with the posting of the declaration within a few hours, however it should be noted that it’s not a procedure which can “surprise” them, since it is materialised in the exact repeated way every ten or fifteen days by the exact same Bodies which are available for the provision of any information and submission of proposals, while every possible effort is made by all the engaged individuals, for the said supplies procedures to be published (posting on DIAVGEIA and HAGS website www.army.gr).
Consequently, any interested party could easily prepare itself (issuance of letter of guarantee, gathering of supporting documents) for each new procedure, since the required supporting documents are exactly the same.
Regarding the accusations on prearranged contests, the following should be noted:
The Military has never tried to assume the responsibility to conduct these contests. It did so because no other Public Body and especially the competent Bodies had the pertinent capability, while the solid view of the Ministry is that it must disengage itself from this affair and transfer the pertinent jurisdiction to the Bodies which the Law stipulates that they are the competent ones.
In case there were no Armed Forces, there would be two choices and they are stated without exaggeration, either these people would starve and rebel constantly, or direct assignments would be conducted without any process (not even that which the Ministry of National Defence is called to answer for) and control (probably by some NGOs).
Contest procedures are conducted in the Greek Territory and particularly the insular territory, where the market is either limited or non existent.
Apart from the above, it is noted that while in the initial contest procedures there was at least a basic antagonism (two or three companies) in the course of things they have proceeded to joint ventures and have made bids on prices reaching the limits of the declaration, or they have shared the islands among themselves, after certain measures taken by the Ministry of National Defence e.g. to deter the contention of more than two Centres by the same body (monopoly), facts which, as can be understood, exceed the sphere of influence or responsibility of the Ministry of National Defence.
Taking the above into consideration and on the more special issues which are touched upon in the newspaper’s article, it is deemed necessary to take into consideration the following provisions:
Starting with Mr Varvitsiotis’ repeated allegations, the following are pointed out:
● An issue of transparency and reliability is raised, regarding the management of the funds for the refugees – immigrants, directly insulting all members of the Armed Forces who are involved in the relative procurement procedures and the relative cost control, also pointing out that the said members, despite their main mission and the “burden” they carry, facing needs which are particular in nature and non – flexible, have undertaken the duty to accomplish the relative procedures.
● Errors and omissions are always a possibility, particularly when someone works under pressure, implementing a relatively new legislative framework concerning contracts, yet accusations are being made targeting the Armed Forces’ members, without presenting the least evidence which might indicate fraud or intention of deceit by these members.
The Ministry of National Defence has repeatedly responded to questions of Parliamentary control and to relative publications, presenting the necessary data, in order to avoid “dark areas” regarding the management of relative funds (even detailed data of contracts and suppliers have been submitted by Mr Vitsas, ex – Alternate Minister of National Defence).
Regarding the funding that the Ministry of National Defence has received out of community resources, I point out the following:
● The 90 million Euros spent out of the Emergency Assistance 100 million Euros (Grant Agreements Budget) have been audited, as mentioned above, by the competent Auditing Departments of the Military Services, by certified companies of chartered auditors, resulting out of a bidding procedure and by the competent Services of the Court of Auditors, case by case. For this reason, I challenge anyone to go through these audits and then identify them as “not really strict”, in accordance with what is stated in the newspaper by “those who are familiar with the file”.
The 57 million Euros of the Grant Agreement regarding “The enhancement of the capability of land, floating and airborne assets to respond for the surveillance – patrol of the borders and the protection and rescue of human life” have been audited by the Competent Authority and the highest, nationally speaking, Financial Audit Committee of the Ministry of Finance, with insignificant, in terms of quality (oversights, mistakes, wrong recording) and quantity (low level of rejected costs) remarks / costs rejections.
With regard to the aforementioned last part, the inconsistency of the publication makes great impression, since, on one hand, Mr Varvitsiotis speaks of unused millions regarding safeguarding the borders, and on the other hand, at an earlier stage of the publication, the reporter condemns appropriations’ absorption by the Ministry of NationalDefence, for the “The enhancement of the capability of land, floating and airborne assets to respond for the surveillance – patrol of the borders and the protection and rescue of human life, furthermore leaving the Port Authority out of the loop”. Thus, it is pointed out that:
● The Ministry of National Defence participates in refugees – immigrants actions, whether in the context of NATO level taken decisions (for example, SNMG2 operation), or in air evacuations, refugees – immigrants Search and Rescue missions, etc, whilst through the above Grant Agreement of 57 million Euros, it managed to make up for relative appropriations allotted from the State Budget, in cooperation with the Ministry of Economy and Development (it is made clear that the Ministry of National Defence did not receive the specific appropriations, but the State Budget did), by developing the relative financing tools, in the context of the National Programme. I repeat once more that these costs have been audited by both the Competent Authority and the Financial Audit Committee.
● Especially for the doctors, I point out that their allocation (military doctors) is carried out by the Ministry of National Defence, where feasible, without removing community funds (except for some amount of money for consumables), since there are jointly funded programs of other Agencies (for example, PHILOS program), with regard to the provision of relative services. Thus, to avoid double funding from the EU as well, the Ministry of National Defence does not request a relative funding.
I simply remind you that not substantiated reports, like those of Mr Varvitsiotis and Mr Avgenakis in the past (2017), have led to audits by the European Anti – Fraud Office (OLAF). I cannot say more on this matter though, since such an audit is in progress, but I can assure you that the preparation and the responses of the Ministry of National Defence Agencies have covered and they will cover in the future any questions concerning our Ministry and the relative funds management. Regarding Mrs Moutousis unsubstantiated publication, there will be no special reference, since it concerns philosophical – contemplative ideas of incompetent people, in relation to the Ministry of
National Defence appropriations management, but it will be noted that:
● The bidding procedures followed are common (mainly L.4412/16 and L.4368/16), either we refer to “emergency funding” through the EU, or to “normal funding”, through the Ministry of Economy and Development.
● The request submitted by the Ministry of National Defence is examined (filtered) thoroughly by the Commission’s competent committees, with the approval and control procedure not being so simple, as someone may think as an outsider. It is also noted that we have repeatedly received the most positive comments as a Ministry regarding our Services’ response, with regard to times (timely data submission, reports submission etc) and to terms of provided data (intermediate reports, final reports, auditors certificates etc).
● There have been no direct assignments, in the sense mentioned in the article (especially regarding food supply), since the applied bidding procedures are the ones provided in the appropriate legislative framework (open procedures and negotiations procedures, without publishing an invitation to bid), while, let us not forget, direct assignment is a procedure covered by the procurements’ law, regarding costs below 20,000 Euros.
● Also, there is no comment about the reference that “the Ministry of National Defence was also selected for emergency needs, because it can function quickly in relation to public biddings. They could not proceed with this through the State” and it indicates the speaker’s knowledge of the Hellenic Public Administration, since he has not realised that the Ministry of National Defence comes under the Public Sector and applies the same legislative framework regarding procurements.
● Regarding Mr Kanakis statements about the need to make audits and the insinuation that the management is not right, it is not deemed necessary to repeat the aforementioned (controls of Ministerial Decisions, FCC, Court of Auditors etc), since he himself should speak about the audits and the appropriations management of his Organisation and not of the Ministry of National Defence (everyone must put their own house in order).
● In the whole publication there is also reference to the particular nature of needs that the Ministry of National Defence must cover, during a constant change of flows, pointing out all the more so that the Ministry of Economy and Development must not follow National Strategic Reference Framework procedures, but on the other hand, it requires quick and effective procedures, so that people will not starve, remain clean etc.
Finally, regarding Mr Seretis references, it is pointed out that:
● The non transparent procedures and the inability to define and implement a specific strategy, obviously, following the above, do not concern the Ministry of National Defence, since everything is posted on the internet, from the declarations in DIAVGEIA and the General Staffs’ sites, to the weekly HNDGS press releases, so that all European citizens are informed on the management of the relative appropriations (they are published in the English language as well), whilst, regarding the future, the multi – year programming is already in a stage of implementation, through the National Programmes, despite the arising problems / difficulties.
● Regarding the mutual overlap of responsibilities among Ministries, I invite him to read the appropriate legislation, as described above, to realise that especially regarding L.4368/16, L.4375/16 and Government Gazette (FEK) B 630/2016, the Ministry of National Defence organisation issues (Central Coordination Department of Refugees Crisis Management – Local Coordination Centre of Refugees Crisis Management) and the coordination relations among the Agencies are efficiently covered, whilst no relative mutualoverlap problem has been reported by our Agencies.
● Regarding the Ministry of National Defence pan – European novelty to manage money disproportionally in relation to the Armed Forces issues, let me remind those who are knowledgeable that the annual Budget handled by the Ministry of National Defence exceeds three billion Euros, while in the past (2009) it exceeded 6 billion Euros, so when we talk about 100 – 150 million Euros, we indeed mean disproportion, but a reverse one.
Regarding the friendly market powers and the potential high beneficiary, it is pointed out that:
● The applied bidding procedures, despite the fact that they could have occurred without publishing an invitation to bid, are consistent with the transparency and publicity rules (posting on the internet), while it is noted that procedures are repeated on a regular basis and each person can express interest about them.
● Considering the limited market range and the interested parties, practice has shown that even in biddings that last more than a month (three months or even a year), the competitors are the same and the given discounts through transparent procedures are small in most cases, even equal to nil.
Regarding Moria’s life cycle, the editor of the article should look elsewhere, since just last winter the Ministry of National Defence received the relative request with a respective study from Lesvos Water Supply – Drainage Municipal Corporation (2016) and since the procedure has “frozen”, the Ministry of National Defence was called to deal with the matter and for this reason, the Constructions Studies Unit was ordered to undertake the project, in cooperation with the Municipal Authorities, with the works starting immediately.
In the reports regarding non strict audits through the Emergency Funding, I invite anyone, after passing through the audit of Auditing Departments, Certified companies of Chartered Auditors and the Court of Auditors, without finding fraud or deceit, to say that these audits were not strict.
Obviously, the management of Emergency appropriations is more direct, since the only agent involved after Commission’s approval is the Ministry of National Defence, without mediation of other Ministry Agencies, a fact that causes delays in itself, since there are no Technical Bulletins in the Emergencies, or amendments of Sub – works from a Managerial Authority, or implementation decisions with the same means etc. It was for this reason that the European Union created this mechanism. What would be its difference if it passed through all the other bureaucratic procedures?
Regarding the “gap” that the Ministry of National Defence is called to fulfill, because “it has the personnel and the know – how”, we call upon the statements in Mrs Moutousis vicinal publication, in which the reasons of the Ministry of National Defence involvement were stated, as well as upon the belief of the people that it is completely justified, regarding the fact that the Ministry of National Defence is clearly the most organised service of the Hellenic Public Administration and the Units which are dispersed all over the country also justified its relative intervention.
With regard to the examples of the editor who seeks to impress, I simply point out that the generators’ maintenance for a place where at least 1000 people reside is not the same with a generator that one has at home and also that air conditions maintenance (service) and purchase (procurement) have different procurement codes and cannot be mixed up”.
