[ad_1]
According to the Comptroller’s Office, administrative, construction, execution and control failures would have caused a loss of profits of $ 1.1 billion, in addition to the serious emergency that the work caused in 2018. These are the 28 accused.
After a year of investigating the Ituango hydroelectric project (Hidroituango), the General Comptroller’s Office issued 28 accusations to people and contractors for their alleged participation in the chain of errors that generated the 2018 contingency. That year, the work suffered the plugging of one of the diversion tunnels and caused an unprecedented social and environmental emergency, as well as millions in losses.
According to Carlos Felipe Córdoba, comptroller general, “the failures in the hydroelectric plant are the result of a chain of errors from the planning, design and execution.” These errors have had, in the opinion of the entity, three major consequences: that the project is not generating electricity, that it was already contracted for 2018 and for which there would be a loss of profits of $ 1.1 billion.
There has been a disproportionate increase in costs throughout the work, which went from costing the $ 6 billion initially projected to $ 13 billion; it is on these numbers that the fiscal damage is estimated for $ 2.9 billion. And, last but not least, the generation of the 2018 contingency, which ended up completely altering the way of life of the municipalities closest to the dam, such as Puerto Valdivia, among others.
Also read: EPM will have a budget of $ 19.2 billion in 2021
The Comptroller’s Office divided the fiscal responsibilities of the project into four categories: the members of the board of directors of the Hidroituango Society, the managers of EPM and the hydroelectric project, the mayors and governors of the time, and, finally, the contractors in charge of the constructions main, as well as the auditors who had to monitor the correct execution of the work.
Individual managers
Tax charges were imposed on Aníbal Gaviria, former mayor of Medellín (2012 – 2015) and Luis Alfredo Ramos, former governor of Antioquia (2008-2011) for omissionate conduct in relation to guardianship control over the project.
To the former governor Sergio Fajardo (2012-2016) and former mayor Alonso Salazar (2008 and 2011) They are charged with actions and decisions that would have led to the loss of the project’s net value, since they were part of the Hidroituango board of directors. Juan Esteban Calle Restrepo, EPM’s legal representative, is also among those named.
This is the complete list of the accused:
It should be said that the control body decided to archive the proceedings of Jorge Londoño de La Cuesta, former manager of EPM, and who did not act with gross negligence, according to the Comptroller; Jesús Jaramillo, private secretary of the department of Antioquia; Management and Specialized Audit (cost auditor), Sebastián Álvarez, Antioquia project manager; Wilson Chinchilla, a member of the EPM board of directors who did not participate in decision-making, and Hugo Mora, a member of the board of directors who did not act with gross negligence.
Related consortia
Consortium CCCI Ituango, builders of the main works:
The Comptroller charged Construções e Comercio Camargo Correa SA, Constructora Conconcreto SA and Coninsa Ramon H SA with alleged behaviors such as systematic delays in the construction of works, construction defects in the GAD (Auxiliary Deviation Gallery) and increase in the values of Contract CT-2012-00036.
Consortium Tunnels Ituango Fs, builders of diversion tunnels
Ferrovial Agroman Chile SA and Sainc Ingenieros Constructores SA are charged with alleged behavior of systematic delays in the construction of diversion works and the increase in the value of the contract.
Ingetec-Sedic Consortium, auditor
Ingenieros Consultores Civiles y Eléctricos SA – Ingetec and Sedic SA are charged with the alleged conduct of failure to follow up on the main works contract in relation to the construction of the GAD and the acceleration plan as such.
Generación Ituango Consortium, designer and advisor
Integral SAS, Integral Ingeniería de Supervisión SAS, are charged with the alleged behaviors of deficient advice, precarious modification in designs for incorporation of GAD and omissions of the warnings of the Board of experts.
How did we get to this?
The Comptroller’s Office has drawn up a kind of timeline that, according to the entity, explains the fiscal problems, but also the errors that led to the 2018 emergency, which came close to causing one of the worst tragedies in the country’s history.
For the Comptroller, everything starts in 2008, when “the lack of diligence of the contractors in charge of the design begins to be noticed”. Between 2008 and 2009, the construction of the access roads to the project began, but it is done without definitive designs and its layout is modified, says the control body; at the same time, the height of the dam was modified, delaying construction.
Between 2010 and 2011 an auction was held to find the builder of the project. Firms from China, Korea, Brazil and Colombia show their interest in participating in the work. But the process was suspended and EPM was chosen with direct hiring. At the same time, modifications were made to the contract, which, says the Comptroller’s Office, “release EPM from liability and modify the distribution of risks to the detriment of Hidroituango.”
In 2011, the construction of the diversion tunnels began without the access roads and “it is necessary to adopt contingency, acceleration or recovery plans that significantly increase costs,” argues the Comptroller. Problems with the tunnel contractor’s equipment leads to the suspension of work.
In 2013, and until 2015, the Comptroller’s Office found flaws in the diversion of the Cauca River, the main artery to give life to the project. In the end, this operation, critical for all the works, could not be carried out as planned and was assigned to the main works contractor.
The structure of the project is substantially modified since “EPM did not contract the gates on time”. The control entity warned that some characteristics that were classified as unchangeable were “abruptly changed for the construction of works, such as the third diversion tunnel (GAD)”, which was the one that collapsed in 2018 and caused the emergency that ended up preventing the entry into operation of the project.
The Comptroller’s Office explained that the accused may exercise their right to defense and subsequently a probationary period will begin in which the pertinent evidence will be analyzed. Then the corresponding fiscal responsibility ruling will be issued.
