The Austrian Court of Audit presents: reports on the head office of the Austrian Post, the Austrian National Library and science communication

Today, the Austrian Court of Audit (ACA) presented the following reports: 

• Post Office Building at the Rochusplatz in Vienna
  
• Austrian National Library  
  
• Research and Science Communication
  

In the period of 2014 to 2017, the Österreichische Post AG (Austrian Post) had its new head office built at the Rochusplatz in the 3^rd district of Vienna for about EUR 84.21 million. The ACA audited the implementation of the construction project.

Despite the city-centre location, the listed building and the archaeological findings on the construction site, the Austrian Post implemented the project largely within the time and cost frame. However, the ACA also detected deficiencies in the implementation, namely with regard to the award of contracts, pollutant and impurity investigations and the examination of additional charges. In its report “Post Office Building at the Rochusplatz in Vienna”, the ACA furthermore points to the fact that the supervisory board had no overall overview of all the costs attributable to the project. The audit focused on the period from 2013 to 2017.

External consultants were commissioned despite in-house know-how

The Austrian Post had its new head office built in two stages: the pre-project, which represented a financial volume of some EUR 11.64 million, was carried out by the Austrian Post itself. For the main project (with a financial volume of some EUR 72.57 million) it commissioned a full-service contractor who was responsible for all construction-related measures, amongst others the project management and the building optimization. The type and the financial volume of the project justified this procedure.

By commissioning a full-service contractor, the Austrian Post reduced its builder-owner tasks to a minimum. Despite the in-house know-how, the Austrian Post commissioned external consultants for the fulfilment of its remaining builder-owner tasks, such as for the of the procurement procedure. These external services incurred costs of EUR 1.48 million.

The supervisory board had no overview of the overall costs 

In November 2013, the supervisory board approved a maximum investment volume of EUR 83.50 million for the project, in concrete terms EUR 89 million less a risk buffer of EUR 5.50 million. The approved overall investment costs, however, did not contain EUR 1.25 million, which were incurred for safety technology, and EUR 5.84 million for the furnishing and media technology. Furthermore, costs for consulting and project management services as well as for in-house outputs had been ignored. Consequently, the supervisory board had no overall overview of all the costs attributable to the project.

Criticism regarding the handling of hazardous waste

Of two buildings on the site foreseen for the new head office, one building was torn down. The Austrian Post failed to commission a pollutant and impurity investigation as stipulated by the Austrian national standards (ÖNORM). Consequently, it ran the risk of retaining hazardous waste such as asbestos. This was despite the fact that for persons well-versed in construction works it was evident that the roof was made up of asbestos-cement sheets. The ACA criticized the lack of diligence and the lacking awareness with regard to the handing of hazardous waste.

Documents went missing  

The ACA's auditors pointed to delays and hindrances with which they were confronted during the audit of the Austrian Post. The provision of data and documents by the Austrian Post was, in part, very time consuming and came with massive delays. Furthermore, documents on the proceedings related to the technical and operational monitoring were lacking. The Austrian Post argued that the documents had gone missing in the course of the relocation to the new head office. Due to the missing documents, the ACA could not assess the legality of this procurement procedure. 

The ACA’s recommendations

The ACA recommends the following: As regards the implementation of construction projects, in-house resources should be harnessed before external consultants are commissioned. If the necessary know-how is lacking in special areas, it should be evaluated whether it would be more economic to enhance the expertise of the personnel.

All costs of a construction project – also costs incurred for consultants – should be presented to the supervisory board and the executive board and be managed and controlled in the course of the project.