The national registry of administrative buildings contains false data and lacks information on thousands of building
PRESS RELEASE on Audit No. 13/40 – June 30, 2014
The Supreme Audit Office (SAO) performed an audit that aimed at administrative buildings situated in Prague, which are owned and used by six selected ministries. Auditors scrutinized renting of office premises by the ministries and prices, which the ministries charged for leasing of their own office facilities. The audited period was from 2011 to 2013. Audited bodies included Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, Ministry of Regional Development, and Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports. Auditors also scrutinized the Central Registry of Administrative Buildings (CRAB), which is operated by the Office for Government Representation in Property Affairs.
In 2013, the audited ministries managed the total office area of 161,000 square metres in Prague, out of which 150,000 square metres were owned by the State, nearly 10,000 square metres were leased or used without enumeration by other subjects, and over 31,000 square metres of offices were rented from other subjects.
Renting charges and prices differed significantly: While the Ministry of Finance paid CZK 1,700 per square meter a year for office area in the Politických vězňů Street, the Ministry of Education paid CZK 6,600 for offices in Karlín and spent CZK 38.5 million for 5,500 square metres of office area in 2013. The same ministry also leased own premises situated in Karmelitská Street (in the lucrative area of Malá Strana) and charged CZK 276 per square metre a year.
Auditors also scrutinized development and operation of the CRAB registry, which should keep accurate and up-to-date records of available office space and other premises in State’s possession so that national institutions and the public could use the data. The CRAB registry should also provide a summary of operating and maintenance costs related to the premises, the extent of their current use, and back-up materials for making decisions about the possibilities of leases or even sales of long-term useless buildings.
The Office for Government Representation in Property Affairs (OGRPA) spent CZK 254 million on the CRAB registry’s implementation. When planning the project, the OGRPA expected only one possibility – that the CRAB registry would become a superstructure to the existing Informational system of the State’s property (ISMS). It was clear that only the licensed provider of Informational system of the State’s property (ISMS) would be allowed to design and create the CRAB. The OGRPA paid CZK 180 million to the provider for installation of the CRAB on the basis of three public contracts awarded by negotiated procedures without publication (i. e. without tendering). The SAO has already warned that long-term reliance on one specific provider has a negative effect on the economy of public contracts. Thus the OGRPA failed to create best conditions for the CRAB registry to be cost effective. Auditors also scrutinized yearly operating and administration costs of the CRAB registry and revealed that the OGRPA paid more than CZK 62 million for the CRAB registry’s administration to a particular state enterprise in 2013.
In fact, the CRAB registry does not entirely fulfil its purposes. In spite the Government ordered the ministries and other central administrative authorities to record all data about their office buildings in the CRAB registry no later than July 1, 2013, there were data only about 1 918 buildings by the end of 2013. In 2007, a survey made with 60 % state subjects revealed that state institutions used 4 800 office buildings, out of which 71 % were owned by the State. That implies that many office buildings are not registered in the CRAB. At the same time, the OGRPA does not know the exact number of administrative buildings, which should be registered in the CRAB registry.
The ones who insert the data are responsible for the data accuracy and the OGRPA cannot control them. Auditors revealed a lot of discrepancies: for example, buildings with available office area were registered as fully used. The SAO concluded that the data in the registry are often incomplete and unlikely, and that is why the CRAB registry cannot meet the main objective, for which it was installed – i. e. economical use of the State properties.
Communication Department
Supreme Audit Office