Project Name
Country
Prohibited Practice(s)
Nationality
Year
Type
Duration
Collusive Practice: The Sanctions Committee found that the preponderance of evidence indicated that the Respondent engaged in a collusive practice by participating in the manipulation of the procurement processes. This manipulation had occurred through private communications with a public official responsible for contract awards. The purpose of this was to prevent fair competition among all bidders to secure contract awards for the firm.
The Respondent was an executive of a firm that participated in the selection processes for the award of contracts under the Program “Improving the Public Sector Payroll Budget Information Service” (the “Program”).
The Office of Institutional Integrity (the “OII”) submitted a Statement of Charges and Evidence against the Respondent for allegedly engaging in a collusive practice related to the Program. The OII's specific allegations were that the Respondent colluded with public officials linked to the Program to manipulate the procurement processes with the purpose of favoring the firm.
Consequently, and in accordance with the Sanctions Procedures, the Sanctions Officer issued a Notice of Administrative Action (the “Notice”) to the Respondent. In the Response to the Notice, the Respondent denied the allegations presented by the OII. Following the issuance of the Notice and reviewing the Respondent’s Response, the Sanctions Officer issued a Determination finding that the Respondent had engaged in collusive practices. The Sanctions Officer imposed a debarment against the Respondent. In accordance with the Sanctions Procedures, the Respondent appealed the Sanction Officer’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 Sanction Officer’s Determination, the Respondent’s Appeal and the OII’s Reply), the Committee concluded that it was more likely than not that the Respondent had engaged in a collusive practice. The Committee imposed a one (1) year-debarment period in which the Respondent will be ineligible to participate or be awarded contracts for projects or activities financed by the IDB Group. The Committee took into consideration the involvement of a public official in the prohibited practice as an aggravating factor. The Committee considered the Respondent’s cooperation during the investigation as a mitigating factor.