SNC32

The Respondent Firm was 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 Firm for allegedly engaging in a fraudulent practice related to the Program. The OII's charges were that the Respondent Firm had engaged in a fraudulent practice by misrepresenting information of its 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 Firm. In the Response to the Notice, the Respondent Firm denied the allegations presented by the OII. Following the review of the Respondent Firm’s Response, the Sanctions Officer issued a Determination finding that the Respondent Firm had engaged in fraudulent 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”). Concerning the misrepresentation of information related to the company’s prior experience in two construction projects, the Respondent Firm asserted that the documentation submitted to show previous experience in one of those projects was correct. In relation to the second project, it argued that it was not able to provide additional evidence due to the company’s administrative limitations at the time of executing the second project. Finally, the Respondent Firm recognized its 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 Firm’s Response, the Sanctions Officer’s Determination, the Respondent Firms’ Appeal and the OII’s Reply), the Committee concluded that it was more likely than not that the Respondent Firm had engaged in a fraudulent practice. The Committee imposed a three (3) 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 did not consider aggravating or mitigating factors.