SNC51

The Respondent was representative of a company that participated in a procurement process to execute works within the Water and Sanitation Improvement Program of Peru (the “Program").

The Office of Institutional Integrity (the “OII”) submitted a Statement of Charges and Evidence against the Respondent for allegedly engaging in fraudulent practices related to the Program. The OII's charges were that the Respondent had engaged in a fraudulent practice by misrepresenting information regarding the company’s previous construction experience to fulfill the technical requirements of the bidding process. The purpose of this was to obtain a benefit through the contract’s award.

Upon evaluation of the Statement of Charges, the Sanctions Officer issued a Notice of Administrative Action (the “Notice”) to the Respondent. In the Response to the Notice, the Respondent denied the allegations presented by the OII. Following the review of the Respondent’s Response, the Sanctions Officer issued a Determination finding that the Respondent had engaged in fraudulent practices. The Sanctions Officer imposed a debarment against the Respondent. In accordance with the Sanctions Procedures, the Respondent appealed the Sanctions Officer’s Determination before the Sanctions Committee (the “Committee”). The Respondent indicated that his company had participated in the bidding process as part of a consortium and asserted that the documentation that his company had submitted to the consortium’s leading company was correct. He also stated that the consortium’s leading company was responsible of sending the proposal and documentation to the selection committee. He further argued that the misrepresentation identified in the bidding documents was due to a typographical error. Furthermore, the Respondent alleged as mitigating factors the minimal harm caused by the sanctionable conduct given that the contract was not awarded to the company along with the voluntarily implementation of corrective measures.

Following a de novo review of the record (including the Statement of Charges, the Notice, the Respondent’s Response, the Sanctions Officer’s Determination, the Respondent’s Appeal and the OII’s Reply), the Committee concluded that it was more likely than not that the Respondent had engaged in a fraudulent practice. The Committee imposed a three (3) year-debarment period in which the Respondent will be ineligible to participate in or be awarded contracts for projects or activities financed by the IDB Group. The Committee did not consider aggravating or mitigating factors.