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 Firm had colluded with a public official linked to the project to manipulate 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, thereby inappropriately benefiting from contracts awards.
The Respondent Firm was awarded two contracts under the Program “Improving the Public Sector Payroll Budget Information Service” (the “Program”): a contract for IT infrastructure development and support, and a contract for IT platform hosting services.
The Office of Institutional Integrity (the “OII”) submitted a Statement of Charges and Evidence against the Respondent Firm for allegedly engaging in a collusive practice related to the Program. The OII's specific allegations were that the Respondent Firm engaged in a collusive practice by colluding with a public official directly linked to the Program to manipulate the contract selection processes. The purpose of this was to obtain a benefit derived from the contracts award.
Consequently, and in accordance with the Sanctions Procedures, the Sanctions Officer issued a Notice of Administrative Action (the “Notice”) to the Respondent Firm. In the Response to the Notice, the Respondent Firm denied the allegations presented by OII. Following the issuance of the Notice and reviewing the Respondent Firm’s Response, the Sanctions Officer issued a Determination finding that the Respondent Firm had engaged in collusive practices. The Sanctions Officer imposed a debarment against the Respondent Firm. In accordance with the Sanctions Procedures, the Respondent Firm appealed the Sanctions Officer’s Determination before the Sanctions Committee (the “Committee”). The Respondent Firm denied committing the prohibited practice.
Following a de novo review of the record (including the Statement of Charges, the Notice, the Respondent Firm’s Response, the Sanctions Officer’s Determination, the Respondent Firm’s Appeal and the OII’s Reply), the Committee concluded that it was more likely than not that the Respondent Firm had engaged in a collusive practice. The Committee imposed a one (1) year-debarment period in which the Respondent Firm will be ineligible to participate in 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 Firm’s cooperation during the investigation along with the voluntarily implemented corrective measures, as mitigating factors.