Project Name
Country
Prohibited Practice(s)
Nationality
Year
Type
Duration
Fraudulent Practice: The respondent entity (“Respondent Firm”) and the legal representative of the Respondent Firm (“Individual Respondent”, hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Respondents”) participated in a Bank-financed bidding process and submitted false information about its key employees’ experiences in the Respondent Firm’s proposal, in order to fulfill the requirements of the bidding process and increase the probability of obtaining the Contract by misleading the Executing Agency.
The Respondents presented a proposal in a bidding process in connection with the “Peri Urban Potable Water and Sewerage” program of Bolivia. The Office of Institutional Integrity (“OII”) submitted a Statement of Charges and Evidence against the Respondents. OII’s specific accusations were that, the Respondents submitted false information to the Executing Agency related to its key employees’ experiences to fulfill the requirements of the bidding process in order to obtain more points during the technical review and thus, increase the probability of obtaining the award of the Contract.
Consequently, and in accordance with the Sanctions Procedures, the Sanctions Officer (“SO”) issued a Notice of Administrative Action (“Notice”) to the Respondents. In the Responses to the Notice, the Respondents denied the allegations presented by OII.
Following the issuance of the Notice and reviewing the Respondents’ Response, the SO issued a Determination finding that the Respondents engaged in a fraudulent practice and imposed a debarment. In accordance with the Sanctions Procedures, the Respondents appealed the SO’s Determination before the Sanctions Committee (the “Committee”). In the Respondents’ appeal to the Committee, the Respondents denied wrongdoing amounting to a sanctionable practice.
Following a de novo review of the written record (including the Statement of Charges, the Notice, the Respondents’ Response, the SO’s Determinations, Respondent’s Appeal and OII’s Reply), the Committee concluded that it was more likely than not that the Respondents engaged in a fraudulent practice. The Committee did not consider any mitigating or aggravating factor. The Committee imposed a three (3) year debarment during which time the Respondents will be ineligible to participate or be awarded contracts for projects or activities financed by the Bank.