Ijciet 09 13 017

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)
Volume 9, Issue 13, December 2018, pp. 159-169, Article ID: IJCIET_09_13_017
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=13
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316
© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed
AUDIT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF

CONSTRUCTION ORGANIZATIONS WITH A
SHARE OF STATE PARTICIPATION IN THE
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Irina Sergeevna Egorova, Svetlana Nikolaevna Milovidova and Maria Mikhailovna
Basova
Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation,
Moscow, Russian Federation
ABSTRACT
The article is devoted to efficiency assessment of invested funds in the course of
performance audits in construction companies with state participation, as well as to
the problems of determination and identification of performance indicators. The
authors emphasize the peculiarities of determining the efficiency of the state funds
usage indicators and their interaction with the going concern assessment.
Key words: Efficiency, Performance Audit, State Resources, Construction
Companies, Going Concern, State Audit Standards.
Cite this Article: Irina Sergeevna Egorova, Svetlana Nikolaevna Milovidova and
Maria Mikhailovna Basova, Audit of the Effectiveness of Construction Organizations
with a Share of State Participation in the Russian Federation, International Journal of
Civil Engineering and Technology, 9(13), 2018, pp. 159–169
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=13
1. INTRODUCTION
In both Russian and international auditing practice, the efficiency assessment of invested funds
has become extremely important. Despite the fact that according to Russian auditing standards,
a user should not take an auditor’s opinion as a confirmation of the efficient conduct of
business, this assessment is one of the primary in making managerial decisions. Moreover,
performance assessment is paramount when conducting internal control and internal audit in
accordance with professional business standards.
Issues related to performance audit are quite well examined regarding the assessment of the
use of state funds when conducting a state audit, as well as identifying a system of key
performance indicators for state-owned companies. Performance audit plays an important role
in the specific structure of audit measures of the Russian Audit Chamber.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 159 editor@iaeme.com

Irina Sergeevna Egorova, Svetlana Nikolaevna Milovidova and Maria Mikhailovna Basova
In the international state audit practice, performance audit issues are considered in the
following standards: ISSAI 100 “Fundamental Principles of Public-Sector Auditing”, ISSAI
300 “Fundamental Principles of Performance Auditing”, ISSAI 3000 “Standards for
Performance Auditing”, and ISSAI 3100 “Performance Audit Guidelines” [1].
When determining the place of construction companies with state participation among
companies that are subject to a performance audit, several problems can be identified:
1. the problem of identifying construction companies with state participation;
2. the problem of determining the share of state participation;
3. the problem of determining the organizational-legal form of a construction
company with a share of state participation in order to apply Key Performance
Indicators (KPI);
4. the problem of identifying types of an audit of companies with state participation in
various statutory and legal acts and highlighting a performance audit as an
independent area of control;
5. the problem of identifying the notion of “performance” in various statutory and
legal acts.
The first four problems are specified in Table 1.
Table 1. The problems of determining the place of construction companies with state participation
among companies that are subject to a performance audit
Definitions, size
№ Problem Interpretation of a statutory and legal act
of state share
According to Law No. 402-FZ “On Accounting” dated
December 6, 2011 [2], public-sector companies are as
Public-sector follows: government (municipal) institutions, public bodies,
enterprises local self-government bodies, governing bodies of
government off-budget funds, governing bodies of territorial
government off-budget funds.
According to Law No. 261-FZ “On Energy Saving and
Improving Energy Efficiency and Amending Separate
Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation” dated November
23, 2009 [3], the following legal entities are considered
enterprises, shares of which are held by the state or a
Development of municipal formation:
1. - enterprises, in the charter capitals of which a share held by
definitions
the Russian Federation, a constituent entity of the Russian
Economic entities Federation, a municipal formation exceeds 50%;
with a share of - enterprises, regarding which the Russian Federation, a
state participation constituent entity of the Russian Federation or a municipal
formation is entitled to directly or indirectly control over
50% of the total votes, which fall to voting shares (stakes)
that constitute the charter capital of such legal entities;
- state or municipal unitary enterprises, state or municipal
institutions;
- state-owned enterprises;
- state-owned corporations;

Audit of the Effectiveness of Construction Organizations with a Share of State
Participation in the Russian Federation
- legal entities, whose assets or more than 50% of shares or

stakes in the charter capital, are held by state-owned
corporations.
According to Article 5.3 of Federal Law No. 307 “On
Auditing” [4], when characterizing companies that can be
examined only by auditing organizations, and those
enterprises, agreements of which on the mandatory audit of
Over 25%
accounting (financial) reports are signed upon results of an
open tender at least once every five years, organizations are
mentioned, in the charter capital (joint stock) of which the
state holds at least 25%.
Methodical guidelines to KPI application are as follows: to
identify a share held by the Russian Federation and a Russian
constituent entity that exceeds 50%.
Identification of Law No. 261-FZ dated November 23, 2009 provides the
2. the share of state following identification of economic entities:
participation
- entities, in the charter capital of which a share
held/contributed by the Russian Federation, a constituent
entity of the Russian Federation or a municipal formation
Over 50%
exceeds more than 50%;
- entities, in respect to which the Russian Federation, a
constituent entity of the Russian Federation or a municipal
formation is entitled directly or indirectly to dispose of more
than 50% of total votes;
- legal entities, in which more than 50% of shares or equity
stakes in the charter capital are held by state-owned
corporations.
According to Article 65.1 “Corporate and unitary legal
entities”, the following corporate legal entities (corporations)
are considered legal entities:
- legal entities, founders (participants) of which are entitled
Civil Code of the
to participate (be members) in them.
Russian
Federation [5] Legal entities, founders of which do not become their
participants and do not acquire rights of membership, are
unitary legal entities. There is no definition of the
organizational-legal form of economic entities with state
participation.
Identification of Subjects classified in the All-Russian Classifier of
the Organizational Legal Forms are organizational legal forms of
3. All-Russian
organizational- legal entities that are for-profit or non-profit organizations;
Classifier of
legal form organizations established in accordance with laws with no
Organizational
rights of a legal entity, international organizations, and
Legal Forms [6]
individuals who conduct for-profit activities or activities not
classified by law as entrepreneurship.
Legal entities:
- state or municipal unitary enterprises, state or municipal
Federal Law No. institutions;
261 dated
- state-owned companies;
November 23,
2009 - state-owned corporations;
- state-owned legal entities of other organizational legal
forms, as indicated in Clause 2.

State-owned corporations, state-owned companies, state-

Methodical
owned unitary enterprises, and economic entities, in the
instructions for
charter capital of which the Russian Federation, a constituent
KPI application
entity of the Russian Federation, in the aggregate, hold more
[7]
than 50%.
A performance audit is not distinguished as a separate type,
but it is necessary to execute the going concern assessment
according to ISA 570 “Going Concern” [8].
Going concern means that an entity is able to operate for at
An audit
least 12 months after the reporting date (i.e. it is necessary for
conducted
the auditor to make a forecast).
according to
Federal Law No. ISA 570 provides only a list of indicators, based on which
307 “On this assessment should be conducted, but there is hardly any
Auditing” methodology of application. Methodical recommendations on
Identification of
audit types for the organization and conduct of the mandatory audit of
financial (accounting) statements, as approved in Order No.
4. companies with
state 12 issued by the Russian Federal Agency of State Property
participation Management.
According to Article 15 of Federal Law No. 41 “On the
Audit Chamber of the Russian Federation” [9], State Audit
Standard 104 “Standard of External State Audit (Control).
Performance Audit” (approved by Resolution No. 4PK of the
State audit Collegium of the Audit Chamber of the Russian Federation
on November 30, 2016) [10], performance audit is
distinguished as a separate type, but there is no indication in
statutory documents that the going concern assessment is
necessary.
Having analyzed the problems of determination of construction companies with state
participation among performance audit subjects, as provided in Table 1, one can draw the
conclusion that it is necessary to do the following:
1. to consider as audit subjects economic entities with any stakes (not only those
exceeding 25%);
2. to use unified methods for this type of audit, which are based on the calculation of
impact and performance indicators with a clear differentiation;
3. to assess and analyze impact and performance indicators together with
creditworthiness and financial stability of entities under audit. This will make it
possible to take into account the risk associated with the failure to achieve them;
4. to supplement performance assessment by the going concern assessment of
economic entities with state participation by events and conditions of financial and
operational nature, and by other events and conditions according to ISA 570 “Going
Concern”.
When the Audit Chamber of the Russian Federation conducts state audit, one of the
fundamental standards is State Audit Standard No. 104 “Performance Audit”, which defines
efficiency of the use of federal (1). and other (2) resources and characterizes the ratio between
the achievement of goals and solution of problems related to Russia’s socio-economic
development and the spending of federal and other resources to achieve them.
The efficiency of the use of federal and other resources and its characteristics are given in
Table 2.

The fact that the standard does not give a formalized view of the performance indicators is
also a problem. For this reason, we propose to formalize the performance definitions by these
standards (economy, efficiency and productivity).
Economy is understood as a situation when a company under performance audit achieves
specified results by using as little federal and other resources as possible.
According to State Audit Standard No. 104, the economy condition for federal and other
resources can be shown in the following formalized form:
FIR1 < FIR0 with R0 = R1,
where FIR0 is the amount of federal and other resources in the base period (data of the plan,
of the previous period);
FIR1 is an actual amount of federal and other resources;
R0 is the planned results;
R1 is the achieved results.
Table 2. Efficiency indicators for the use of federal and other resources according to State Audit
Standard No. 104 and their characteristics
Efficiency of the use of federal and other resources
Economy Efficiency Productivity
Characterized by specified Characterized by the amount of Characterized by the best
results achieved by a resources specified by a results achieved by a
performance audit subject, performance audit subject per performance audit subject using
using as little federal and other unit of work performed and a specific amount of federal and
resources as possible. services provided. other resources.
The efficiency condition for the use of federal and other resources according to State Audit
Standard No. 104 can be shown in the following formalized form:
RU0 / FIR0 <= RU1 / FIR1,
Where FIR0 is standards and indicators, which are used by budgeting participants when
planning budgetary allocations;
FIR1 is the amount of resources spent;
RU0 is the planned work, services;
RU1 is the actual scope of work performed and services provided.
The productivity condition for the use of federal and other resources according to State
Audit Standard No. 104 can be shown in the following formalized form:
FIR0 = FIR1, with R1 >= R0
For this reason, we propose to present the assessment of the economic use of federal and
other resources as part of performance audit in construction companies with state participation
in the form of the following working document (Table 3).

Table 3. The proposed form of the working document for the assessment of efficient use of federal
and other resources as part of performance audit in construction companies with state participation
Plan, standard, Deviation, +,

Symbol, calculation
№ Indicator previous Actual -, RUB
method
period thousand
Amount of federal and

1. other resources, RUB FIR
thousand
Result (work, services),

2. R (RU)
RUB thousand
Performance indicators
Economy (Ea), RUB FIR1 < FIR0,

3. X X
thousand with R0 = R1
Efficiency (Ef), RU0 / FIR0 <= RU1 /

4. X X
RUB/RUB FIR1
Productivity (Er), FIR0 = FIR1,

5. X X
RUB thousand with R1 >= R0
The analysis of various definitions of the efficiency of federal and other resources use leads
to the conclusion that the efficiency indicator is the performance indicator, while the economy
and productivity indicators are impact indicators.
A question arises about the identification of non-performance indicators. For this reason,
in accordance with Paragraph 4 of Clause 23 of Resolution No. 23 “On Some Issues Related
to the Application by Courts of Arbitration of the Standards from the Budget Code of the
Russian Federation” passed by the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian
Federation on June 22, 2006” (as drafted in Resolution No. 17 passed by the Plenum of the
Supreme Arbitration Court on February 26, 2009), “…a specific expenditure item can be
recognized as the inefficient use of budget funds only if an authorized body proves that
problems faced by a budgetary participant could be achieved by using a smaller amount of
funds or that a budgetary participant might achieve better results by using an amount specified
in the budget” [11].
However, the mechanism of determining these possibilities and the procedure for proving
them are not established in a legislative manner and are not unified so it is quite problematic to
audit performance indicators.
Performance audit stages are fully presented in State Audit Standard No. 104 (Figure 1).
We believe that the performance audit of the state funds use by construction companies
with state participation should be solidified by going concern assessment. For this reason, we
propose a number going concern assessment indicators as given in ISA 570 (revised) “Going
Concern” and their interpretation based on construction companies with state participation,
namely PJSC Stroymontazh, PJSC Nadezhda, PJSC Avtostroy, and PJSC Rosstroy.
Application of analytical procedures in the analysis and assessment of the activity of the
entity being audited (construction organization with state participation) within the framework

of financial events or conditions for the existence of a threat to the going concern, in our
opinion, should be started with the analysis of the statement of changes in capital.
Stages of performance audit
Identification of performance indicators
Preparatory stage of the audit
Preliminary examination of the performance audit subject

Collection and analysis of information about the performance audit subjects, analysis of current risks
associated with inefficient use of resources, consultations with external exper ts
Performance audit goals and questions

Formulation of the goals specifying the main issues related to performance audit,
which will be solved by its conduct and the preparation of the project program
Criteria for assessment of the use of federal and other resources
Qualitative and quantitative characteristics showing which results point to the

efficient use of resources and how the operation of performance audit subjects should
be organized in order to use them
Methods and approaches applied during performance audit
examination, revision, analysis, inspection, monitoring
Main stage of the audit
Collection and analysis of actual data and information. Obtainment of evidence
Collection and analysis of evidence representing sufficient actual data and reliable
information
Ways to obtain and methods to examine actual data and information
inquiry, use of several Comparison with a reference standard, comparative analysis,

factor analysis, data analysis, including measurement,
sources, survey, conversation,
calculation and analysis of financial and economic indicators
etc. of the performance audit subject
Final stage of the audit
Conclusions
Recommendations
Preparation of a report on the results
Control of the execution of the performance audit results
Figure 2. Organization and methodology of performance audit in construction companies with state
participation
Proposals on assessment of the presence/absence of a threat to the going concern of based
on the analysis of the net assets held by suppositive modeled construction companies with state
participation (PJSC Stroymontazh, PJSC Nadezhda, PJSC Avtostroy, and PJSC Rosstroy) for
2017 are presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Proposals on assessment of the presence/absence of a threat to the going concern of based on
the analysis of the net assets held by the construction companies with state participation (PJSC
Stroymontazh, PJSC Nadezhda, PJSC Avtostroy, and PJSC Rosstroy) for 2017
There is a threat to There is no threat
Company under the going concern to the going Conclusion
№ Line code
audit – negative net concern – positive (no threat/threat)
assets net assets
PJSC No threat to the
1. 3600 - 20,150,714
Stroymontazh going concern
No threat to the
2. PJSC Nadezhda 3600 - 4,237,344,000
going concern
No threat to the
3. PJSC Avtostroy 3600 - 316,214,108
going concern
1400-1500-
1600+1530-1170 No threat to the
4. PJSC Rosstroy - 1,059,918,453
(calculated based on going concern
the balance sheet)
In this case, a company’s net assets were taken to determine whether there is any threat to
the going concern. Net assets constitute the real value of a company’s assets, which is
calculated annually and excludes debt, i.e. the difference between the company’s assets and
liabilities. A positive number means that there is no threat, a negative number means that there
is a threat.
Of the aforementioned construction companies with state participation, the highest value
of net assets is held by PJSC Nadezhda, while PJSC Stroymontazh holds the lowest value.
Consequently, PJSC Nadezhda is characterized by the strongest standing.
However, based on the obtained audit evidence, one can conclude that the positive number
of net assets held by all companies under audit excludes a threat to the going concern. There is
no doubt that the organizations can maintain the continuity of business.
Proposals on assessment of the presence/absence of a threat to the going concern of based
on the data from its Balance Sheet and Statement of Changes in Capital for 2017 are given in
Table 5.
Table 5. Proposals on assessment of the presence/absence of a threat to the going concern of PJSC
Stroymontazh in 2017
RUB Conclusion
№ Item Line code Assessment criterion
thousand (threat/no threat)
3600, Statement of Net assets > charter capital
1 Net assets 20,150,714
Changes in Capital – there is a threat
Threat
Net assets < charter capital
2 Charter capital 1310, Balance Sheet 83,254
– there is no threat
Proposals on assessment of the presence/absence of a threat to the going concern of PJSC
Nadezhda based on the data from its Balance Sheet and Statement of Changes in Capital for
2017 are given in Table 6.

Nadezhda in 2017
Conclusion
№ Item Line code RUB thousand Assessment criterion
(threat/no threat)
3600, Statement of Net assets > charter
1 Net assets 4,237,344
Changes in Capital capital – there is a
threat
Threat
Net assets < charter
2 Charter capital 1310, Balance Sheet 2,144,315
capital – there is no
threat
Avtostroy based on the data from its Balance Sheet and Statement of Changes in Capital for
Avtostroy in 2017
Conclusion
(threat/no threat)
1 Net assets 377,165,818
threat
Threat
threat
Rosstroy based on the data from its Balance Sheet and Statement of Changes in Capital for
Rosstroy in 2017
Conclusion
(threat/no threat)
1 Net assets 1,059,918,453
threat
Threat
threat
Based on the analysis of performance audit of the enterprises one can determine whether
there is a threat to the going concern of PJSC Stroymontazh, PJSC Nadezhda, PJSC Avtostroy
and PJSC Rosstroy since the analysis the net assets indicators are higher than their charter
capitals indicators (20,150,714 > 83,254; 4,237,344 > 2,144,315; 377,165,818 > 12,285,499
and 1,059,918,453 > 97,231,067, respectively).
Next, we will analyze the operation of construction companies with state participation
based on the condition “Presence of negative operating cash flows” using their Cash Flow
Statements for 2017.
Proposals on assessment of the presence/absence of a threat to the going concern upon
analysis of the condition “Negative operating cash flows” based on the Cash Flow Statements

of construction companies with state participation (PJSC Stroymontazh, PJSC Nadezhda, PJSC
Avtostroy, and PJSC Rosstroy) for 2017 are presented in Table 9.
Table 9. Proposals on assessment of the presence/absence of a threat to the going concern upon
analysis of the condition “Negative operating cash flows” based on the Cash Flow Statement of
construction companies with state participation (PJSC Stroymontazh, PJSC Nadezhda, PJSC
Avtostroy, and PJSC Rosstroy) for 2017
Threat to going concern – No threat to going
Conclusion:
Economic entity Line code negative operating cash concern – positive
(threat/no threat)
flows operating cash flows
PJSC Stroymontazh 4100 - 1,868,081 No threat
PJSC Nadezhda 4100 - 202,494 No threat
Cannot be
PJSC Avtostroy 4100 n/a n/a
determined
PJSC Rosstroy 4100 -44,953,345 - Threat
With regard to the two the given construction companies with state participation (PJSC
Stroymontazh and PJSC Nadezhda), there is no threat to the going concern since their operating
cash flows total 1,868,081,000 RUB and 202,494,000 RUB respectively. As for PJSC
Rosstroy, there is a threat to the going concern since its operating cash flow equals -
44,953,345,000 RUB. It is not possible to determine if there is a threat to the going concern of
PJSC Avtostroy since its Cash Flow Statement for 2017 is not available, which raises doubt
about the efficiency of its operations since the company is state-owned and operates using
funds from the state budget, which, in turn, is accumulated by taxpayer funds.
In conclusion, we examined the features of a performance audit of construction companies
with state participation conducted by both the Audit Chamber of the Russian Federation and
auditing firms. Each of these institutions conducts an audit within a specified area of business,
however, in the situation under study, their authorities overlap.
Moreover, there is also the problem of the low level of methodological support of Russian
supervisory authorities at the level of the performance audit. In connection to this, we have set
forth a number of relevant proposals [11-15].
REFERENCES
[1] International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions (ISSAI).
https://www.eurosai.org/ru/topMenu/ISSAI.html.
[2] Federal Law No. 402-FZ “On accounting” dated December 12, 2011 (edited July 29, 2018).
[3] Federal Law No. 261-FZ “On Energy Saving and Improving Energy Efficiency and
Amending Separate Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation” dated November 23, 2009
(the latest edition).
[4] Law No. 307-FZ “On Auditing” dated December 30, 2008 (the latest edition).
[5] Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Part I) No 61-FZ dated November 30, 1994.
[6] OK 028-2012. The All-Russian Classifier of Organizational and Legal Forms (approved by
Rosstandarts order No 505 dated October 16, 2012) (edited December 12, 2014).
[7] Guidelines for the application of key performance indicators by state-owned corporations,
state-owned companies, state-owned unitary enterprises, as well as business societies, in
the authorized capital of which the share of participation of the Russian Federation, a
subject of the Russian Federation in total exceeds 50% (approved by the Federal Property
Management Agency).

[8] International Auditing Standards approved by the Russian Finance Ministry’s Order No.
207n “On Enacting International Auditing Standards in the Russian Federation” dated
November 9, 2016.
[9] Law No. 41-FZ “On the Audit Chamber of the Russian Federation” dated April 5, 2013
(the latest edition).
[10] State Audit Standard 104. The standard of an external state audit (control). Performance
audit (approved by Resolution No. 4PK of the Collegium of the Russian Audit Chamber
dated November 30, 2016).
[11] Egorova, I. S. Peculiarities of the method to audit efficiency of state funds use. Audit, 12,
2017, pp. 12-21.
[12] Egorova, I. S. Practical implementation of the going concern assessment according to ISA
570 “Going Concern” based on data from financial statements. Auditorskie vedomosti, 8,
2017, pp. 17-28.
[13] Egorova, I. S. Peculiarities of a shift to international auditing standards. Auditor, 5, 2018,
pp. 15-27.
[14] Egorova, I. S. Peculiarities of a performance audit: problems of identification and
implementation. Auditor, 1, 2017, pp. 29-36.
[15] Egorova, I. S. Features of evaluating the effectiveness of internal financial audit. Auditor,
4, 2018, pp. 25-37.
[16] G. Delorme, G. Srivastava and M. Shanmugasundaram, Some Considerations of the Actual
Problems Related to Good Corporate Governance, and the Impetus for Law Enforcement.
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(9), 2017, pp. 881–888.
[17] A. Premavasumathi and Sivasankari. A Study on Effectiveness of Employee’s Training and
Development In Rane Brake Lining Limited, Viralimalai, Trichy. International Journal of
Management, 7(2), 2016, pp. 368-378.

Ijciet 09 13 017

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Ijciet 09 13 017

Cargado por

Copyright:

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

AUDIT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 159 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 160 editor@iaeme.com

- legal entities, whose assets or more than 50% of shares or

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 161 editor@iaeme.com

State-owned corporations, state-owned companies, state-

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 162 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 163 editor@iaeme.com

Plan, standard, Deviation, +,

Amount of federal and

Result (work, services),

Economy (Ea), RUB FIR1 < FIR0,

Efficiency (Ef), RU0 / FIR0 <= RU1 /

Productivity (Er), FIR0 = FIR1,

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 164 editor@iaeme.com

Identification of performance indicators

Preparatory stage of the audit

Preliminary examination of the performance audit subject

Performance audit goals and questions

Qualitative and quantitative characteristics showing which results point to the

Main stage of the audit

Collection and analysis of actual data and information. Obtainment of evidence

inquiry, use of several Comparison with a reference standard, comparative analysis,

Final stage of the audit

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 165 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 166 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 167 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 168 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 169 editor@iaeme.com

También podría gustarte