The Respondent Firm presented a proposal in a bidding process in connection with the Establishing Cadastral Registry and Strengthening Legal Certainty Protected Areas Program in Guatemala (the “Program”). This bidding process was canceled.

The Office of Institutional Integrity (“OII”) submitted a Statement of Charges and Evidence against the Respondent Firm, among others, for allegedly engaging in fraudulent practices related to the Program. OII’s specific accusations were that during the procurement process of the bidding process, the Respondent Firm engaged in a fraudulent practice by presenting false information in its proposal related to the Respondent Firm’s past experience to fulfill the requirements of the bidding documents. Further, OII requested, in accordance with Section 8.3 of the Sanctions Procedures, to extend the sanctions impose to the Individual Respondent to the Respondent Firm.

Consequently, and in accordance with the Sanctions Procedures, the Sanctions Officer (“SO”) issued Notice of Administrative Action (“Notice”) to the Respondent Firm. In the Response to the Notice, the Respondent Firm denied the allegation presented by OII. Following the issuance of the Notice and reviewing the Respondent Firm’s Response, the SO issued a Determination finding that the Respondent Firm engaged in fraudulent practices and imposed a debarment against the Respondent Firm. Also, the SO extended to the Respondent Firm the Individual Respondent’s sanction for engaging in prohibited practices in accordance with the Sanctions Procedures. The Respondent Firm appealed the SO’s Determination before the Sanctions Committee (the “Committee”). The Respondent Firm denied committing the prohibited practice.

Following a de novo review of the written record (including the Statement of Charges, the Notice, the Response of the Respondent Firm, the SO’s Determination, the Appeal of the Respondent, and OII’s Reply), the Committee concluded that it was more likely than not that the Respondent Firm engaged in fraudulent practices. Also, in accordance with Section 8.3 of the Sanctions Procedures, the sanction imposed on the Individual Respondent was extended to the Respondent Firm. In determining the extension of this sanction, the Committee took into consideration that the sanctioned Individual Respondent was the general manager and legal representative of the Respondent Firm. The Committee imposed a thirteen (13) year-debarment period in which the Respondent Firm will be ineligible to participate or be awarded contracts for projects or activities financed by the Bank. The Committee did not consider any mitigating or aggravating factor.