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”). The Respondent Firm was awarded a contract for eight lots under the bidding process (the “Contract”).

The Office of Institutional Integrity (“OII”) submitted a Statement of Charges and Evidence against the Respondent Firm among others, for allegedly engaging in collusive, and corrupt practices related to the Program. OII’s accused the Respondent Firm of engaging in 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 bidding process to limit open competition in the procurement process. This arrangement was designed to provide an improper advantage to the Respondent Firm and secure the award of the Contract. OII also alleged that the Respondent 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. 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 Determination finding that the Respondent Firm engaged in collusive, and corrupt practices and imposed a debarment against the Respondent Firm. Further, the SO extended to the Respondent Firm the Individual Respondent’s sanction for engaging in fraudulent 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 practices.

Following a de novo review of the written record (including the Statement of Charges, the Notice, the Response of 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 Firm engaged in collusive and corrupt 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 Respondent Firm’s founder and majority owner. 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 took into account the following aggravating factors: (i) the central role played by the Respondent Firm 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.