Upon findings into an investigation of a complaint alleging that, the tenderer for the winning bid submitted pursuant to Baa Eydhafushi Council’s invitation to tender to fix electricity failure problems in Eydhafushi Multi-purpose building, was the brother of the then President of the Council, and that the tenderer did not attend the pre bid meeting, and the price he had quoted was relatively higher than the rest of the bids, and that the Council’s President was involved in accepting the bids, and that the latter’s designation was cited as “Vice-president of Eydhafushi Council’’ on the document on which the details of the bids were documented on, the Anti-Corruption Commission, has concluded as follows:
1. The pre-bid meeting held by the Council was not in accordance with the guidelines provided for in the announcement and Article 8.16 of the Public Finance Regulation. The President of the council was involved in the process of accepting the bids. Moreover, B. Eydhafushi Council acted in contravention with the Article 8.17 of the Public Finance Regulation by accepting a bid submitted via fax. Likewise, a document indicating the relationship between the Council’s then President and his brother was not submitted along with the latter’s estimate, which was in contravention of Article 8.01 (g) the Public Finance Regulation.
2. The former President of the Council was also involved in the evaluation of the bids and the investigation revealed that the members of the bid evaluation committee knew that the winning party for the bid was the brother of the President of the Council. Even though points for price and duration were given according to the criteria, it was observed that all of the members of the evaluation committee had given the exact same points for all bidders, regardless of the fact that each member gave scores on separate sheets. It was also observed that although no party had provided any documents to support evidence for their experience and capability, the parties’ experience and capability were evaluated and full points were given to the three parties who did not attend the pre-bid meeting, including the brother of the former President of the Council. The winning bid had the seventh lowest estimated cost for the completion of the project. Moreover, the agreement for the awarding of the bid was signed by the former president of the council.
Thereby, the Commission has concluded that the case warrants prosecution on the grounds that the bid evaluation committee had acted in a manner that provided an undue advantage to the winning party and that their actions precluded an advantage to the State. Thus, the case has been forwarded to the Prosecutor General’s Office to be prosecuted under Articles 12 (a) and 13 (a) of Law number: 2/2000 (Prevention & Prohibition of Corruption Act).
27th October 2015