Fraudulent Practice: The Sanctions Committee found that it was more likely than not that the Respondent engaged in a fraudulent practice by misrepresenting information in an offer regarding the key personnel responsible for the execution of the contract, to deceive the executing agency and to obtain a financial benefit derived from the award of the contract.
The Respondent represented a firm that provided external technical audit related to the Program to Improve the Equity and Strengthen Health Services (the “Program").
The Office of Institutional Integrity (“OII”) submitted a Statement of Charges and Evidence against the Respondent and others for allegedly engaging in fraudulent practices related to the Program. OII’s specific allegations were that during the process of awarding the contract for the Program the Respondent had engaged in a fraudulent practice– by misrepresenting information concerning the key technical personnel.
Consequently, and in accordance with the Sanctions Procedures, the Sanctions Officer (“SO”) issued a Notice of Administrative Action (“Notice”) to the Respondent. In the 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 had engaged in fraudulent practices. The SO imposed a debarment against the Respondent. In accordance with the Sanctions Procedures, the Respondent appealed the SO’s Determination before the Sanctions Committee (the “Committee”). The Respondent denied committing the prohibited practices.
Following a de novo review of the written record (including the Statement of Charges, the Notice, the Respondent’s Response, the SO’s Determination, Respondent’s Appeal and OII’s Reply), the Committee concluded that it was more likely than not that the Respondent had engaged in a fraudulent practice. The Committee imposed a ten (10) year-debarment period in which the Respondent will be ineligible to participate or be awarded contracts for projects or activities financed by the Bank. The Committee took in consideration the central role in prohibited practice as aggravating factor. The Committee did not consider mitigating factors.