ACC has concluded its investigation of a complaint alleging that the officials of Ministry of Energy and Environment had abused its functions for the purpose of unduly benefiting a bidder during the evaluation of the bids submitted to the Ministry following the invitation for bids for the establishment of water and sewerage systems in 5 islands.
The Ministry had announced twice via its announcement number (IUL) 13-K1/13/2015/337 (24 November 2015) and (IUL) 13-K1/13/2015/339 (24 November 2015), inviting bidders for the establishment of water and sewerage systems in Raa Atoll Hulhudhuffaaru, Noon Atoll Velidhoo, Baa Atoll Thulhaadhoo, Gaaf Alif Atoll Kolamaafushi and Gaaf Dhaalu Atoll Gadhoo.
Although the complaint alleged that a second evaluation of the bids were made in order to benefit a certain bidder, the investigation found that the second evaluation was made upon a request made by the Evaluation Section of the Ministry upon findings of irregularities in the marks and the comments given to some of the bids.
The ACC reviewed the reasons for the request made by the Evaluation Section and found that there were 6 categories upon which the bids were evaluated and the marks given for some of the categories (number of construction works performed during the past 5 years, adequate working capital and credit facility, experience and equipment) in the first evaluation were not consistent. The inconsistency was observed where the bidders were eligible in any of the qualifications required under the categories they were given full marks in that category and where any of the bidders were ineligible as per all the qualification required under the category, instead of deducting the marks for such bids the issue was only highlighted in the footnote.
In the second evaluation where the bidders were eligible under all of the qualifications required under the categories they were given full marks in that category and where any of the bidders were ineligible under any of the qualifications marks were deducted and where such changes were made to the first evaluation the reason was provided in the table containing the marks and the footnotes.
Upon review of how the changes were made, ACC found that the changes were made rightly and that the purpose of the second evaluation was not to provide an undue benefit to a bidder. The same bidder, Maldives Water and Sewerage Company (a governmental company) came out as the successful party as per the results of the two evaluations. The investigation did not reveal that any of the officials in the evaluation committee or the Ministry had abused their functions in contravention with the law number 2/2000 (Prevention and Prohibition of Corruption Act).
Hence, the case was concluded under section 25 (a) (1) of law number 13/2008 (Anti-Corruption Commission Act) as there was no offence of corruption in the case.