A letter has already been received from the Parliamentary Control and Defense Committees.
Hasapopoulos' letter is accompanied by a confidential report of the Auditor General to the chairman and members of the Committee, which contains an excerpt of the relevant legislation (on the submission of false data or concealment of true data) on the basis of which the matter can be referred to the plenary. Parliament for any establishment of an Investigative Committee, or in general for referral of the matter to the Attorney General.
Specifically, the Auditor General, Odysseas Michailidis, states the following:
"Or if the Parliamentary Committee takes the view that those who have appeared before it have given false statements or refused or concealed the truth or have not provided the requested documents and that this complicates its work on the subject under discussion, it shall draw up a report to its Plenary. Parliament, which acts in accordance with the provisions of the next article 8 ".
It is noted that Article 8 of the relevant legislation also mentions the following: "Περί In the case of any person, Independent Officer, civil servant or individual, in cases of special importance for the public interest, either refers the matter to the Attorney General for investigation as defined in the provisions of paragraph (a) or decides Commission… ».
Regarding Mr. Hasapopoulos' note, it states, among other things, that from a survey conducted in 2008, when the purchase of the three helicopters was discussed, the basic price of each helicopter that the National Guard would buy was € 12.174.900 and then decreased trading at € 10.947.305 but rose with training, spare parts, etc., to € 15.035.000.
Mr. Hasapopoulos notes that the appraisal price from the Ministry of Defense was € 20 million (for all three helicopters) but in the end the contract was awarded at € 45 million. At the same time, the appraisal price for the Police helicopters was € 28 million. and finally the contract was awarded at € 31,5 million.
Mr. Hasapopoulos claims that Ms. Giorkatzi did not submit all the information he had prepared for her in order to be fully informed by the Parliament. He also referred to Ms. Giorkatzi's misleading reports to the Commission.
What is recorded in the note of the Audit Office
● The purchase of the National Guard's 3 Agusta-Westland 139 helicopters occupied the Parliamentary Committee on Defense in two meetings.
During the first session, the Auditor General, Chr. Giorkatzi, informed the Commission that she was receiving medical treatment due to illness and her views would be submitted by the then General Director of the Ministry of Defense, P. Kareklas. During this discussion, questions were raised (mainly Mr. Hasikos) why no purchase was made for all 5 helicopters (three of the Hellenic Police and two of the Police) and he even stated that the Police could cancel the tender and buy with the prices of the Ministry of Defense if there was an option, if those prices were good.
Χρι Until the next meeting, my colleague and I studied the contract prepared by the Ministry of Defense with the various additions made, and then Agusta's announcements of recent sales of the same type were investigated and a note was prepared which was submitted to the Auditor General. before the session, to submit it to the Committee on Defense.
In this note I quoted a market research I did for this particular helicopter, the prices I found were € 9,52 million (for 10 + 2 helicopters) for medical use, € 8,55 million for 13 helicopters for offshore shipments and EMS, € 10,32 million) for 10 helicopters for offshore transport companies and € 14,44 million for 18 S / P for SAR, special forces missions, troop transport, but including training and an initial package of spare parts.
. Next, I quoted the comparative prices of the helicopter of the Ministry of Defense for the basic helicopter which was € 12.174.900 and after negotiation it was reduced to € 10.947.305. With the additions (training, spare parts, technical support, options), the price went up to € 15.035.000 per helicopter, concluding that, given the lack of competitive conditions and the selling prices of similar helicopters in other countries, I had "« the view that the outcome of the negotiation was unsatisfactory and I have serious reservations about the amount of the contract. "
Then, I quoted the comparison of the price of the Police helicopter which was € 13.869.128 for the main helicopter, concluding that "… the price of Agusta in the case of the Police is even higher (for the same model) and also here there were no conditions satisfactory competition. "
● My note, however, was not submitted to the Commission or read in its entirety. He only provided some facts to justify the price difference. Specifically, Mr. Hasikos stated that the price of the helicopter that will be purchased by the Ministry of Defense is € 8,8 million and the contract price was € 15 million. The Auditor General stated, among other things, that the basic helicopter differs from case to case. , and in the case of the Police, which was an open tender, the price was proportional, which was not correct and in fact, based on the data contained in my note, the large price difference was documented, comparing the main helicopter.
● It is noted that the cost estimate of the Ministry of Defense was € 20,5 million while the contract was awarded for € 45,0 million The Police was € 28,0 million and the contract was awarded for € 31,5 million During the discussion / approval of the matter to the Special Central Council of the Ministry of Defense on 17/7/2008, as a representative of the Auditor General, I pointed out that the amount recommended for award is about twice the cost estimate, which was not commented on in the evaluation report.
● In view of the above, I have the opinion that the Auditor General did not submit my detailed note nor did he mention my reservations about the reduced participation of valid bids in the tenders, as well as the high prices, even trying to entertain the impressions or to refute the reports that confirmed my conclusions for high prices (especially the reports of Mr. S. Hasikos), instead of stating that our conclusions also agreed. I consider that her whole attitude and her reports - compared to the content of my note - were misleading for the Committee on Defense and this fact is confirmed by the Minutes of the session as well as by the fact that she did not submit the note, but was limited to fragmentary and selective reports that did not reflect the substance, ie that there was no satisfactory competition and the prices were unreasonably high.
Source: Phileleftheros