Fraudulent Practice: The Individual Respondent was found to have misrepresented the authorship of the documents submitted during the implementation of a Consulting Contract.
The Individual Respondent (“Respondent”) was a partner and operations manager of a firm subcontracted by a consortium, which was awarded a Consulting Contract (the “Contract”) in connection with the Water and Sanitation Improvement Program in Peru (the “Program”). The Office of Institutional Integrity (“OII”) submitted a Statement of Charges and Evidence against the Respondent, the subcontractor and the parties composing the consortium, for allegedly engaging in fraudulent practices related to the Program. OII’s specific accusations were that during the implementation of the Contract, the Respondent and the consortium parties misrepresented the authorship of several documents submitted to the Executing Agency to obtain the first payment under the Contract. Consequently, and in accordance with the Sanctions Procedures, the Sanctions Officer (“SO”) issued a Notice of Administrative Action (“Notice”) to the Respondent. The Respondent did not submit a Response to the Notice.
The SO determined that it is more likely than not that the Respondent engaged in a fraudulent practice. As a result, the SO imposed a sanction of debarment for a period of two (2) years, during which time the Respondent will be ineligible to participate or be awarded contracts for projects or activities financed by the Bank Group. In determining the sanction, the SO took into account, as a mitigating factor, that the Prohibited Practice did not adversely affect the implementation of the Contract. In accordance with the Sanctions Procedures, the sanction imposed entered into force immediately and the Bank provided notice of this declaration of ineligibility to the other Multilateral Development Banks that are a party to the Agreement for Mutual Enforcement of Debarment Decisions.