No intentional mistakes when buying a vaccine

When purchasing Covid-19 vaccines, two contracts with vaccine manufacturers were not covered by commitment credits. This is confirmed by an external investigation. However, no legal or contractual obligations have been intentionally violated.

This is stated in the final report of Kurt Grüter, ex-director of the Swiss Federal Court of Auditors (SFAO). The Federal Council had already taken note of the report on 19 October. It was published on Wednesday in consultation with the parliamentary finance committees.

Loans and contracts examined

The investigation started in the summer. The Federal Council had applied for an additional loan for the purchase of Covid-19 vaccines for 2022. However, during the deliberations in parliament it was unclear whether the parliament could cut this loan.

That caused a stir. The Ministry of the Interior (EDI) and the Ministry of Defence, Civil Protection and Sports (DDPS) then examined all loans and contracts over the Whitsun days.

Two unfunded contracts

The result then as now: in two cases, contracts and payments were not covered by loans. In addition, not all contracts allowed Parliament to change orders without violating the contracts. Finally, the investigations revealed that not all the figures used to calculate the loans were correct.

The first case relates to the year 2020. The second case relates to early May 2021. When the contract was signed at that time, the Parliament had not yet approved the pledged loan. A credit reservation was in effect until the end of May 2021. However, the parliament did not approve the necessary funds until June 7, 2021.

No new errors found

The administrative investigation launched by Minister of Health Alain Berset (50) did not reveal any new abuses, but “completely confirmed” the previous findings of the internal administrative investigations of the beginning of June, as announced by the Federal Council. Grüter analyzed various documents and interviewed 26 people involved.

However, critical words can also be found in the final report. For example, the tasks and powers of the Federal Office of Health (BAG) and the Army Logistics Base (LBA) in the area of ​​credit management were not clearly defined. But at this time, everything had to go very quickly. Legal or contractual obligations or information obligations are “not intentionally violated”.

During the investigation, it was not possible to clarify in detail whether the information on each transaction was always sent to all parties involved in a timely manner and at the correct level. It is clear that the deadlines were extremely tight.

Ten recommendations for the federal government

Ten recommendations are derived from the results of the study in the report. For example, in the case of cross-departmental tasks, responsibilities must be clearly defined from the outset. In addition, the crisis organization must be set up more broadly with many people affected and the people responsible for finance must be more involved.

For its part, the Federal Council stated that it had already learned the first lessons. When purchasing the vaccine against monkey pox last August, an advice had already been taken into account. Other recommendations are in line with the findings of the federal crisis management assessments. The federal crisis organization is currently under scrutiny with a view to future events.

(SDA)