SNC52

The Respondent Firm was a party to a consortium 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 (“OII”) submitted a Statement of Charges and Evidence against the Respondent Firm for allegedly engaging in fraudulent practices related to the Program. The OII's charges were that the Respondent Firm 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 Firm. In the Response to the Notice, the Respondent Firm denied the allegations presented by the OII. Following the review of the Respondent Firm’s Response, the Sanctions Officer issued a Determination finding that the Respondent Firm had engaged in fraudulent practices. The Sanctions Officer imposed a debarment against the Respondent Firm. In accordance with the Sanctions Procedures, the Respondent Firm appealed the Sanctions Officer’s Determination before the Sanctions Committee (the “Committee”). The Respondent Firm asserted that the documentation that it had submitted to the consortium’s leading company was correct. The Respondent Firm also stated that the consortium’s leading company was responsible of sending the proposal and documentation to the selection committee.

It further argued that the misrepresentation identified in the bidding documents was due to a typographical error. Furthermore, the Respondent Firm alleged as mitigating factors the minimal harm caused by the sanctionable conduct given that the contract was not awarded to it 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 Firm’s Response, the Sanctions Officer’s Determination, the Respondent Firm’s Appeal and the OII’s Reply), the Committee concluded that it was more likely than not that the Respondent Firm had engaged in a fraudulent practice. The Committee imposed a three (3) year-debarment period in which the Respondent Firm 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.