The Respondent , through a First Firm (“First Firm”), presented a proposal in a bidding process (“First Bidding Process”) in connection with the Establishing Cadastral Registry and Strengthening Legal Certainty Protected Areas Program in Guatemala (the “Program”). This First Bidding Process was canceled but subsequently, the Executing Agency reissued bidding documents for the procurement process (“Second Bidding Process”), which was a continuation of the First Bidding Process. The Respondent, through a separate firm (“Second Firm”), submitted a proposal to the Executing Agency for several lots of the Second Bidding Process. The Second Firm was awarded a contract for eight lots under the Second Bidding Process (the “Contract”).

The Office of Institutional Integrity (“OII”) submitted a Statement of Charges and Evidence against the Respondent among others, for allegedly engaging in fraudulent, collusive, and corrupt practices related to the Program. OII’s specific accusations were that during the procurement process of the First Bidding Process, the Respondent and the First Firm engaged in a fraudulent practice by presenting false information in its proposal related to the First Firm’s past experience to fulfill the requirements of the bidding documents. Further, OII accused the Respondent and the Second Firm of committing a collusive practice by entering into an arrangement that involved members of another bidder and officials within the Executing Agency, to modify the technical requirements of the bidding documents in the Second Bidding Process to limit open competition in the procurement process. This arrangement was designed to provide an improper advantage to the Second Firm and secure the award of the Contract. OII also alleged that the Respondent and the Second Firm engaged in a corrupt scheme in collaboration with another bidder, by significantly overinflating the costs of their offers to cover the improper payments that were made directly or indirectly to government and Executing Agency officials who were involved in adjudicating and supervising the bidding process, in order to secure their respective Contracts.

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 Determination finding that the Respondent engaged in fraudulent, collusive, and corrupt practices and 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, 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 engaged in fraudulent, collusive and corrupt practices. The Committee imposed a thirteen (13) 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 following  aggravating factors: (i) the central role played by the Respondent in the scheme, (ii) the damage to the Program, (iii) the lack of cooperation during the investigation, and (iv) the Program’s financing was from the special operation funds.