With the votes of the pro-government members, the OSE board rejected the appeals against the Neptune project that had been presented by the Municipality of Montevideo and the Federation of Officials of OSE (Ffose).
In a previous session, the public company had resolved lift the suspensive effect of other appealsimposed in this case by Ffose and the Friends of the Earth Networks Civil Association, against the resolution that approved the specifications and ordered the call for tenders for the work.
With these decisions, which were rejected by the director of the opposition, OSE ensured the continuity of the tender for the workwhich is one of the main administration of Luis Lacalle Pouand whose cost is estimated at $258.7 million.
Photo: Leonardo Carreno.
Lacalle Pou announced the work in Torre Ejecutiva
The Bid opening is scheduled for May 4 and interested companies, in addition to the promoter consortium (composed of Saceem, Berkes, Ciemsa and Fast), have until April 21 to request extensions or clarifications.
“Improper” resources
The project consists of construction of a water intake and a water treatment plant on the Río de la Plata in the area of Arazati in San José.
In late November, a few days after OSE approved the feasibility studies, the Municipality of Montevideo filed an appeal for revocation and annulment arguing that the project violated article 47 of the Constitution.
This article states that the public water supply service for human consumption must be provided “exclusively and directly by state legal persons” and establishes that users and civil society “will participate in all instances of planning, management and control of resources hydric”.
The administration headed by Caroline Cosse I consider that there was no full participation and that the economic-financial model approved by OSE, an operational leasing that supposes that private companies make the investment and are in charge of the design, construction, financing and maintenance of the infrastructure, while the public company is in charge of the operation, it goes against that regulation, something that OSE rejects.
But the public company, for reject the appeal –declaring the appeal filed “inadmissible”– he did not enter the substantive reasons and it was based on a report from the legal-notarial management that stated that the Municipality claimed to act on behalf of the “inhabitants of Montevideo” but lacked “active legitimacy” since it is not “holder of a subjective legal situation allegedly injured by the prosecuted act”.
as he learned The Observer, OSE used this same argument to reject Ffose’s claim.
In his justification against, the director for the Broad Front, Edgardo Ortunopointed out that the administration could not refuse to receive, process and resolve a administrative appeal invoking the non-existence of qualified legitimacy.
“We understand that the existence of a simple interest must be admitted, this being sufficient, which can be rejected in the last instance by the Administrative Litigation Court,” he said.
Leonardo Carreno
The director of the FA, Edgardo Ortuño, opposed
In turn, he said that the file prevented consider with the depth that the topic deserves and reiterated his discrepancy with the cost of the work and the “serious” economic-financial consequences that will affect OSE’s capabilities to fulfill its duties for the next 20 years.
“As the legally provided consultation and participation instances have not been carried out at decisive moments of the project approval process, provisions expressly established by article 47 of the Constitution are contravened, which grounds the relevance and convenience of the questioned aspects being studied in depth and the highest state agencies at the jurisdictional level issue on them,” he said.
raise the suspension
In the session before Tourism Week, OSE had taken other steps so that the tender could go aheadby resolving to lift the “suspensive effect” of two appeals filed by OSE officials and an NGO.
The resolution, to which he agreed The Observermentions that the General management made a “detailed report” and realizes that said suspension affects “unavoidable reasons of service and causes serious damages”, while the Notarial Legal management added that the causes that “enable the lifting of the suspensive effect” without meaning a pronouncement on the administrative appeals filed.
Ortunothe director for the opposition, voted against and stated that suspending the tender until the resources were evacuated did not affect the service needsthose that “will be generated if the project continues without considering some of the objections raised in the appeals and in the process of considering it.”
“As a medium-term project can and should continue working, it is not an urgent resolution for the immediate provision of the service, as it contributes, but does not definitively solve the assurance of the drinking water supply of the metropolitan area, nor in situations of drought like those experienced last summer, nor in view of the unsatisfied demand projected to 2045,” he said.
Another resources
OSE is studying two other resources (of the National Commission in Defense of Water and Life, and the TUCU TUCU Association) although There are already reports that recommend its file as “inadmissible” with resolutions similar to those adopted on the appeals filed by Ffose and the Municipality of Montevideo.
In turn, the lawsuit filed before the TCA by Ortuño continue to study.
OSE rejected appeals against the Neptuno project
In it, it is indicated that “the will of the body is flawed because it was issued irregularly” since it was resolved by an urgent procedure, without “reasonable justification”, and apart from the provisions of the internal regulations of the board of directors, which meant resolving a “transcendent and complex matter”, which implies assuming important risks and a million-dollar cost for the administration in “24 hours, without time for its due analysis and study”.
In addition, as he expressed, the resolution was adopted without having the reports of the “corresponding OSE specialized technical services,” nor reasonable time for study, analysis, and advice on the documentation received “24 hours before treatment, essential for decision-making. an informed decision.
