Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has investigated a complaint submitted to the commission, as well as addressed in the 2010 audit report (number: FIN-2012-02) claiming that after Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture made an announcement to procure a party to maintain the ministry’s security, the 8 estimates submitted to the ministry with regards to the announcement are issued by 2 individuals. The complaint also alleges that while the ministry had allocated a specific security firm to maintain the security of the Ministry’s Marine Research Center, the Ministry had not made any announcement or obtained any estimates prior to this procurement.
Upon investigation, it was found that while the public finance regulation states that if minimum 3 estimates are not received with regards to an announcement, the estimates should be cancelled followed by a second announcement, the bid in question had not obtained minimum 3 estimates. Although, the evaluation committee of the ministry informed that such measures had to be taken as it was the second announcement, ACC’s investigation did not find any evidence proving that the Ministry made a 2nd announcement regarding this bid. Although this action taken by the Ministry contradicts with the public finance regulation’s section 8’s 19th article. There were no evidence suggesting that this act was purposefully carried out to provide an undue advantage for a third party.
Besides, the evaluation committee has pointed out that the security work was awarded to a bidder that issued the lowest estimate and had experience in maintaining security works in several government and private organizations. Thereby, the investigation did not reveal any contravention with the law number 2/2000 (Prevention and Prohibition of Corruption Act), in the procurement of a firm for maintaining the security work of Hulhumale and Villimale’s Centers run by the Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture. 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.
Upon investigation of the complaint alleging that the ministry had allocated a specific security firm to maintain the security of the Ministry’s Marine Research Center without making any announcement or obtaining any estimates prior to this procurement, it was found that after allocating the security work of the Marine Research Center to a particular firm on 01 February 2009, the agreement made with regards to this procurement was revised on 17 January 2010 as “revision number 01”. Furthermore, as per the documents collected by the commission, there were no evidence revealing that the procurement process was carried out against the public finance regulation’s section 8’s 14th article. Thereby, as the investigation did not reveal that the security work was allocated to a company in order to provide an undue advantage to a third party, 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.