A case alleging that Maldives Road Development Corporation (MRDC) had acted in contradiction to the procurement policies to provide an undue advantage to a third party when procuring vehicles and machineries for the corporation, has been concluded by Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) on 22 November 2016 after investigating the case.
Upon investigation, it was found that amongst the four parties that submitted a proposal to supply the vehicles and machinery needed by MRDC, the bid was awarded to the Company that submitted the most relevant models, the lowest interest rate, the lowest advance percent and the longest credit period. Also, this decision was reached as the winning bidder was the Company that issued the most appealing proposal in terms of the criteria set by MRDC. Moreover, the winning bidder submitted the proposal that deems to provide the maximum benefit for MRDC, as stated in number 2.15.3 of “Procurement strategy and law of government companies”, which was another contributing factor for awarding the bid to that particular Company.
Besides, upon checking the proposals submitted to MRDC, ACC’s investigation revealed that awarding the bid to the forenamed Company is indeed the most beneficiary option for MRDC. Moreover, MRDC had obtained the approval of Ministry of Finance and Treasury on commencing the decision arrived by the Company’s Board.
As the investigation did not reveal any evidence supporting the claim that the bid was unduly awarded to a particular 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.