The Respondent was a member of a consortium, which was awarded a Consulting Contract (“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 and the other consortium members 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 members misrepresented the authorship of several documents submitted to the Executing Agency to obtain the first payment under the Contract. In addition, OII alleged that the Respondent and the other consortium members knowingly failed to disclose to the Executing Agency that the implementation of essential technical aspects of the Contract had been subcontracted to a third party, against what was required by the terms of the Contract, in order for the consortium members to receive a financial benefit. Consequently, and in accordance with 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.

Following the issuance of the Notice and reviewing the Respondent’s Response, the SO issued a Determination finding that the Respondent engaged in a fraudulent practice and imposed a debarment. In accordance with the Sanctions Procedures, the Respondent appealed the SO’s Determination before the Sanctions Committee (the “Committee”). In the Respondent’s appeal to the Committee, the Respondent denied wrongdoing amounting to a sanctionable practice.

Following a de novo review of the written record (including the Statement of Charges, the Notice, the Respondent’s Response, the SO’s Determination, and additional appeal submissions by the Respondent and OII’s Reply), the Committee concluded that it was more likely than not that the Respondent engaged in a fraudulent practice. The Committee held that the Respondent was responsible for the fraudulent practice committed by its employees acting on its behalf. The Committee imposed a four (4) year debarment during which time the Respondent will be ineligible to participate or be awarded contracts for projects or activities financed by the Bank. In determining the sanction, the Committee considered the following mitigating circumstance: the Prohibited Practices did not adversely affect the implementation of the Contract.  Additionally, the Committee considered the following aggravating circumstances: (i) the Program was financed with non-reimbursable funds risking the Bank’s ability to channel funds to the region in the future, thus potentially affecting the Project; (ii) the Respondent engaged in two fraudulent practices and, (iii) the Respondent played a key role in the development of the Program and in organizing the Prohibited Practice Scheme. This sanction was subject to cross-debarment.