Insight view

THE COUNTRY: ECONOMIC POLICY
Misuse of public enterprise
“Airports of Montenegro”
Public companies irresponsibly use money. Huge amounts are often spent without being justified
with appropriate documentation; balances and the money in the treasury usually don’t match due to
cash transfers that are huge and are not in accordance with regulations that define management of
these companies. However, one of the largest problems the country does not appropriately fight is
the system of procurement. Work of the public company, “Airports of Montenegro,” where the National
Audit Institution found a number of flagrant violations of Law on procurement, is the best example.
Audit of work of this company determined facts in implementation of procurement procedures that
were common for most procedures, which describe general access to procurement implementation
based on wrong premise. The Commission for Opening and Evaluation of Offers was formed after a
public call, which was not in accordance with the law. This has been determined in six public procurement
procedures. In this part, the law is quite clear and it has been explained that the Commission
prepares and implements the procurement procedure, meaning that the Commission is obliged to
tender documentation and an invitation letter for public procurement. This company made public procurement
contracts before the deadline for submission of offers, which was also opposite to the law.
Such actions was registered in three cases of public procurement.
According to NAI, during 2008, airports made the procurement for two airstrip cleaners. The decision
on tender was made at the end of 2007, and the tender was published on 22 January 2008. The
public procurement plan for 2008 was registered in the archive on 30 January 2008, which clearly
indicates that the invitation was published before adoption of the public procurement plan for that
year, which was the opposite of the law. This company has also leased office space for a one year period,
where the invitation did not state the estimated lease price at the monthly level, and the assessment
value of the whole procurement had to be mentioned. For this matter, the Directorate for Public
Procurement did not give consent for annex of contract with the contractor, which happened anyway.
In this manner, the law was drastically misused.
NAI stated that work on reconstruction and adaptation of the old building at the Airport in Podgorica
cost citizens even 24.9% more than the value stated in the contract. The value that was agreed after
the public procurement procedure was 3.8 million euros, but at the end, the project cost 4.7 million
euros. The planned value of the project was 3.5 million euros.
The law prescribes an obligatory Feasibility Study for this capital investment, but such an analysis
does not exist in this case. Even the consent of the Directorate for Public Procurement to conclude
the annex with the contractor did not exist, which was a serious abuse of the law.
51