Project Name
Provincial Agricultural Services Program - PROSAP IV
Country
Prohibited Practice(s)
Nationality
Year
Type
Duration
Fraudulent Practices: The individual respondent was found to have recklessly failed to disclose conflicts of interest in the bids of the company he represented, misleading the executing agencies and benefiting from the award of the contracts.
The individual respondent (“Respondent”), acting on behalf of a company, participated in an international competitive bidding process under the Provincial Agricultural Services Program - PROSAP III (2573/OC-AR) and in a national competitive bidding process under the Provincial Agricultural Services Program - PROSAP IV (3806/OC-AR) (“Programs”). The Office of Institutional Integrity (“OII”) submitted a Statement of Charges and Evidence against the Respondent for allegedly engaging in fraudulent practices related to the Programs. OII accused the Respondent of falsely stating that the company he represented met the eligibility requirements and had no conflicts of interest as defined in the bidding documents, thereby avoiding disqualification and benefiting from the award of the contracts. Consequently, and per the Sanctions Procedures, the Sanctions Officer (“SO”) issued a Notice of Administrative Action (“Notice”) to the Respondent. In its Response to the Notice, the Respondent denied the allegations presented by OII.
The SO determined that it was more likely than not that the Respondent engaged in fraudulent practices by recklessly failing to disclose the conflicts of interest in which the company he represented was involved. As a result, the SO imposed a sanction of conditional non-debarment for a period of two (2) years. During that time, the Respondent may participate or be awarded contracts in projects or activities financed by the IDB Group as long as it demonstrates that the company has adjusted its compliance program to a series of conditions. In determining the sanction, the SO considered, as an aggravating factor, his managerial role when committing the prohibited practices. As mitigating circumstances, the SO took into account the Respondent’s cooperation with OII’s investigation and the demonstrated interest in improving the company’s internal control mechanisms.
The Respondent did not appeal the Determination of the SO before the Sanctions Committee; therefore, in accordance with the Sanctions Procedures, the sanction imposed came into force.