SNC31

The Respondent was representative of a construction company that participated in a procurement process to execute works within the Cantonal Road Network Program II (the “Program").

The Office of Institutional Integrity (the “OII”) submitted a Statement of Charges and Evidence against the Respondent for allegedly engaging in a fraudulent practice related to the Program. The OII's charges were that the Respondent had engaged in a fraudulent practice by misrepresenting information regarding the company’s previous construction experience to fulfill the technical requirements of the bidding process. The purpose of this was to obtain a benefit through the contract’s award.

Upon evaluation of the Statement of Charges, 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 review of the Respondent’s Response, the Sanctions Officer issued a Determination finding that the Respondent had engaged in fraudulent practices. The Sanctions Officer imposed a debarment against the Respondent. In accordance with the Sanctions Procedures, the Respondent appealed the Sanctions Officer’s Determination before the Sanctions Committee (the “Committee”). Concerning the misrepresentation of information related to the company’s prior experience in two construction projects, the Respondent asserted that the documentation submitted to show previous experience in one of those projects was correct, while he argued that he wasn’t able to provide additional evidence in relation to the second project due to the company’s administrative limitations at the time of executing the second project. Finally, the Respondent recognized his responsibility for the deficiency in the information and requested a reduction in the imposed sanction.

Following a de novo review of the record (including the Statement of Charges, the Notice, the Respondent’s Response, the Sanctions 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 fraudulent practice. The Committee imposed a three (3) year-debarment period in which the Respondent will be ineligible to participate in or be awarded contracts for projects or activities financed by the IDB Group. The Committee did not consider aggravating or mitigating factors.