SNC5

The Respondent Firm was awarded a software contract (the “Contract”) in connection with the Establishing Cadastral Registry and Strengthening Legal Certainty Protected Areas Program in Guatemala (the “Program”). The Office of Institutional Integrity (“OII”) submitted a Statement of Charges and Evidence against the Respondent Firm, among others, for allegedly engaging in collusive and corrupt practices related to the Program. OII’s specific accusations were that during the procurement process, the Respondent Firm engaged in a collusive practice by entering into an arrangement involving employees of the firm, another bidder, and officials within the Executing Agency, to modify the technical requirements of the bidding documents to limit open competition in the bidding process, which was designed to provide an improper advantage to the firm and secure the award of the Contract. OII also alleged that the Respondent Firm engaged in a corrupt scheme in collaboration with another bidder, by significantly overinflating the costs of their offers to cover the improper payments that were made directly or indirectly to government and Executing Agency officials who were involved in adjudicating and supervising the bidding process, in order to secure their respective contracts. Consequently, and in accordance with the Sanctions Procedures, the Sanctions Officer (“SO”) issued a Notice of Administrative Action (“Notice”) to the Respondent Firm. In his Response to the Notice, the Respondent Firm denied the allegations presented by OII.

Following the issuance of the Notice and reviewing the Respondent Firm’s Response, the SO issued a Determination finding that the Respondent Firm engaged in collusive and corrupt practices and imposed a debarment. In accordance with the Sanctions Procedures, the Respondent Firm appealed the SO’s Determination before the Sanctions Committee (the “Committee”). In the Respondent Firm’s Appeal to the Committee, the Respondent Firm denied committing the prohibited practices.

Following a de novo review of the written record (including the Statement of Charges, the Notice, the Respondent Firm Response, the SO’s Determination, Respondent Firm Appeal and OII’s Reply), the Committee concluded that it was more likely than not that the Respondent Firm engaged in collusive and corrupt practices. The Committee imposed a ten (10) year debarment period in which the Respondent Firm will be ineligible to participate or be awarded contracts for projects or activities financed by the Bank. The Committee took into consideration the following factors: (i) the central role played by the Respondent Firm, (ii) the damage to the Program, (iii) the Program’s financing was from the Bank’s special operation funds.