Next round in the dispute over a controversial mask order: Even after a statement from the University Hospital Magdeburg, the State Audit Office is sticking to its criticism. According to the auditors, there were several shortcomings in the transaction.
Magdeburg (dpa/sa) – The State Audit Office reiterated its criticism of the Magdeburg University Hospital for a controversial FFP2 mask business on Thursday. In December, the auditors complained that the clinic’s approach to the award of contracts worth several hundred thousand euros contradicted the basic regulations of procurement law. A statement by the clinic has now been finally evaluated, and even taking into account the opposite points of view, the Court of Auditors announced on Thursday that they “remain unreservedly” in their own assessment. “Principles of transparency, non-discrimination and competition were ignored”.
The background to the special audit was a private contract awarded by the clinic in December 2020 to a company in North Rhine-Westphalia. A partner in the company was the son of the head of the university clinic, Hans-Jochen Heinze. The Court of Auditors complained that Heinze had not complied with his obligation to provide information to the supervisory board in the course of the transaction “in order to ensure transparent handling of possible conflicts of interest”.
Despite the pandemic-related simplifications in public procurement law, general basic principles of public procurement law had been violated, the Court of Auditors criticized at the time. There were deficiencies in the description of services, the requirement of equal treatment for bidders, the requirement for transparency and the obligation to provide documentation.
On Thursday, the Court of Auditors announced that the clinic had recognized that there was no legal basis for a repeat order as part of the order. The university hospital also intends to optimize its purchasing processes. Details of how this is to be done have not yet been given.
In the course of the deal, premises at the Magdeburg University Hospital were also searched. In March, however, the Magdeburg Regional Court found that the search was unlawful because there was insufficient initial suspicion that a criminal offense had been committed.
The public prosecutor’s office in Magdeburg had initiated investigations into breach of trust, corruption or bribery. These were discontinued at the beginning of March because the suspicion had not been sufficiently substantiated. Uniklinik boss Heinze had always emphasized that family connections had played no role in the award of the contract.
