Prosecutor's expert on the Gjilan highway tender shows the ministry's numerous violations led by Pal Lekaj

Despite the evidence, Kosovo's Special Prosecutor has yet to establish an indictment for four suspects in the Ministry of Infrastructure, one sextor and three members of the Procuring Organising Panel, writes news.

Kosovo police in the past year have handed over criminal speculation to the prosecutor, conspiring to many violations. Following this act, the prosecution has begun interviewing several suspects and authorised two of its foreign experts to draft a report on possible violations that were made during the procurement process of this tender.

News.net owns the report of two legal experts engaged by the Special Prosecutor, who was drafted late last year. The report contains 31 pages and has found that, for this procurement activity, there is a suspicion based on the fact that ministry and Procuration suspects with their actions have damaged the Kosovo budget and favoured offers of irresponsible companies, have also discriminated against other competing companies.

The report has also addressed the claims of suspects made at the prosecutor, where one of the suspects has been found to be lying.

The report is called “SRK related to the Ministry of Infrastructure “Building A7.1 A6/A7. (Baullah) By way of the Bresalz Cross, 2231 km with an internal procurement number MI 17 046 551 and with the number of E-procure 202 -17-2586 -5 -1”.

So according to this alleged report are; former procurement director Betim Recica, I. B- chairman of the reevaluating bidding commission, L. L-members of the re-evaluating commission, M.E. member of the commission and three members of the Procuring Organising Panel, Blerim Dina- chairman and the other two members, Nuhi Pajarizi and Goran Milenkovic.

Although the winners of this tender were initially announced by the LDK government, under the leadership of Minister Lutfi Zharku, the report has targeted only the process after re-evaluation. This, as with the AAK's coming to power, the contracts have been unsigned, as there have been complaints in the Procuratory Organisation for the tender. The OSHP had found that there had been violations and had ordered that the subject be converted to re-evaluation. On this occasion, the ministry led by Paul Lekaj, who had even appointed a new procurement manager, had downplayed all preliminary bids and set new bids.

According to the prosecutor's report, by February 13th to 15th, 2018, contracts have been signed between the winning economic operators and between the contracting authority, where they have signed, Betim Recica Director of the Procure Division Nebill Shatri ʹgeneral, Paul Lekaj Minister of Infrastructure.

Prosecutorial experts, at the beginning of the report, have shown how the process has been going, since the ministry's decisions, company complaints, O decisions The E.P. to the contract signing. Initially, they have started their expertise by stressing smaller offenses to larger ones.

“Autority contractors have acted in conflict with the tender file prepared for this procurement activity, in Part B: Draw contracts& special terms related complaints {Pjesa II of the General Treaty, Article 26.1 The contractority will pay pre-emptive payments to the NVK's (special contract conditions) by referring to this article according to Part II of the contract, the specific conditions in Parliament. 25.1 doesn't say that there's a lot to pay off, it means that in the tender file in this procurement activity, it's not presumption that any particular amount of au is paid before OE winners, or as it is referred to in Avans contracts. In this case, the contractor Authority has acted in opposition to the Tender's Dosing because in contracts signed with OE the winner for eight tears, to the specific conditions at Article 10 in Avans has expressed or suggested that “the amount of advance that contractors will be paid under the contract is 15 percent of the total value of the contract price from Article 2”. For what we consider not only has it acted in opposition to the Tender and LPP Dosing granting OE the winner a 15 per cent advance of contract value, but it has also damaged free and fair competition to conform to pre-principated tender files by making discrimination and favourability. The discrimination for OE who have not been served by contracts because their offers have been prepared by referring to the tender bill and not knowing that in case of contract payment, they would be paid by Avans for 15 percent that would most certainly affect the preparation of the financial supply and the general deadline, while favouration has taken place at this stage for the contract-paid OE. Also signed contracts between the ministry and companies do not have mandatory technical specifications” attached to the report.

In addition to prosecution experts have found that in terms of the continuation of the AK/MMI bidding currency, the main procurement official, Betim Recica, has made the continuation of the offer's incompatible, because the demand for extension of tender bids should be written down and should be requested before the date of the expiration, while in the concrete case, the ministry in this procurement procedure has applied for continuing the bid on 19.12.2017, according to the official letter sent by the economic recacts to this activity, while the ministry has expired with the 1820s.

“Based on this, we find that the continuation of the bidding wave has been made contrary to the provisions of secondary legislation for public procurement, namely Article 31.4 of RRUPP, as well as the tender file 21. The rating commission has assessed the offers without validation for the fact that the currency has expired on 18.11.2017, while the commission has been appointed by 06.11.2017 and has completed its rating report on 20.11,2017, while extending bids from Betim Recica from OE has been requested by the date 19,12.2017, after a month. And in this action, we have to act against the counterprofession, because for the same point as the bidding currency, the evaluation Commission has done the elimination of companies with the reasoning that the same people lack the currency of bids, such as the OE “Tallia&Zuka” participants in this procurement activity, while the ministry itself had continued to re-evaluating even though the OE had expired. The review commission then compiled the report, and by the date 20.11.2017 had recommended giving the contract to eight other companies that were not winners at the first time”, it is said further in the report.

The report stresses that, following the recommendation of the re-evaluation commission, the procurement office was reported, Betim Recica has signed the review commission's report by associating it with No. Prot 473/17 at 21.11. 2017, which is the reasoning of refusing to re-evaluate the Lot 2, where the company recommended for contracting has been changed on the part of the re-evaluating commission, Betim Recica, has declared it responsible and has awarded a tear contract for 2 OE “Gyoka Construction”, at the price of 5,906, 293.67 euros, although the same was declared irresponsible on the part of the review commission regarding some of the tender file requirements and contract announcements, with the commission stating that it has not met the requirements, as indicated there is a lack: In the ranks on technical and professional opportunities, the device has not been verified according to en-minute procedure (on demand) FDT). In the prides on technical and professional opportunities, the company lacks the base of asphalt, stonebreakers and concrete (at FDT request). In demand on technical and professional opportunities, OE lacks communications engineering, has provided electrolyte engineers. He also lacks an audit certificate, according to FDT.

“think the case of the procurement director, Betim Recica, in the report on the assessment of the re-evaluation commission, to the OE recommended contract giving, to tears 2, with the commission recommended OE “Papenburg Ardiani” at the price of 6, 450, 212.75 euros, while replacing with <x3Gjota Construcition” at the price of 5, 906, 293.67, and declaring the reasons (O3). The EPS, as well as pre-investigation, has saved the budget over 500,000 euros. Such a reasoning does not lie in the fact that the OE did not have the non-virtal en-minute act, and other lower-species lack which has been outlined by the re-evaluation commission as well as by the disunitable and meaningless if this official has done such an act by calling in that he has controlled a cheaper offer than the commission recommended, this responsible offer, then, why this director's .d did not check even the cheaper offers announced as responsible by the commission to save the country's <5>, the report is said.

According to prosecutor's experts, the document of the notial act handed over by OE “Gjoka Construction” is not en-minute format and there are other shortages, so this operator is openly favoured by Betim Recica, contrary to the tender file, LPP and RRUPP, since the contract-giving criteria have been “responsible with the lowest price<3>.

“Based on the fact that Recica has consistently stated that it has intervened only in tears 2 and saved the budget by over 500 thousand euros, then the question is why this official did not intervene in the sequence of the list through tears to list OE declared responsible by the re-admination commission according to the criteria for giving the contract “the responsible price at the lowest price of”, with a single intervention in the ranking of those responsible administrative OE would not have been damaged Kosovo's total budget of 2,8, 077%>

Economic operators recommended for the contract under the re-evaluation commission for 8 tears have been: Lot I: Graniti& Engineering group& Armendi Fa 18, 468, 426.50 euros. Lot II: Gjoka Construction 5, 906, 293.67 euros. Lot III: Builder&Gec 6, 850. 467.72 euros. Lot IV:2A Group& Alcohol Impex& Exfiscre: 8, 700, 127.36. Lot V: Ekavator&Abad (Abisc) 17, 899. 684.83 euros. Lot V I: Kag Aspholt& Benny Com 11, 633. 267. O1 euros. Lot V II: Al Trade& Salillary 7, 247, 086.87 euros. V III: Base Joose Krasniqi&Petelaki 11, 913,157.91 euros. Total 88, 618, 511.95 euros.

According to prosecutorial experts, based on the report on the assessment of the 20,11.2017 and the standard letters sent to OE participants and those responsible by the contracting authority and bidding prices of OE classified responsible for tears 8, if the criteria for giving the tender “responsible at the lowest price (4)x1>, the order with the OE proclaimed winners, according to prosecution experts, should be in this form: Lot I: Al Trade& Salillary 16, 024, 128.20. Lot II:2AGroup& Alcohol Impex& Exfix&2T 4, 275, 806.22 euros. Lot III: Builder&Gec 6, 850.467.72 euros. Lot IV: Fanis Co& Gjikuruia 9, 204, 989.00 euros. Lot V: Eskavator&Abad 17, 899, 684.83 euros. Lot V I: Papenburg Ardiani 13, 987, 411.81 euros. Lot V II: Pevelacu&Bas Jos Krasniqi 6, 829, 173. 64 euros. Lot V II: Kag Aspholt&Beni Com 11, 476, 763.18 euros. Total: 86, 548, 424.60 euros.

“If all these OEs that have been declared responsible administrativeally by the ministry, without entering that, according to their surrender offer, are responsible or irresponsible, so take as a favour the ministry's assessment of their responsibility and their recommendation for contract compensation (recognative and Ud commission. Procurement director Betim Recica, the Ministry of Infrastructure, as well as the OSHP's considered panel, should the combination of the OE rankings declared responsible administrativeally managed by AK through all tears have not been damaged the budget of 2, 070, 087.30 euros”, the prosecution's legal experts have outlined.

Ministry commission violations, according to prosecutorial experts

But according to these two experts, there have been discrimination and favourability of bidders in many cases, both on the part of the contracting Authority and on the part of the OSHP panel. On the part of the contracting Authority based on the tender assessment report of 20,11.2017, such as: On page 13 of the rating report to technical Cres and/or professional skills at the eight “contract list” for OE “Graniti&Enginering Group& I assume that you don't complete the 14th page with No and the final column in which it checks that the responsible tender with yes/not for this OE scores with NO and at the end of the assessment where responsible OE is listed, the commission puts it responsible and recommends it for contract.

“

According to prosecutor's experts, it's totally non-professional and confusing assessment when it comes to the request of the tender that has been very disunitable and used fairly and fairly and equally for all OE, such as if we refer to the OE “assessment. Salla” has participated in 7 tears. The commission in any of the tears feels the same as in this document (notial act) while the same document is presented for all tears, for tears 1, 2,3,4,5,6 and 7 in their non-recognition report, while in tears 2 and 3 estimate it with YES (which it has), and at the very end of the report where they give reasons for responsible OE of this procurement activity to OEx <2> Sa Perëndia” gives this explanation: Based on requested FDT documents in the tender file, the upper OE has a lack of documentation. At the headlines on technical and/professional possibilities, 7-mule points, stabilisations and technical equipment that are necessary for project implementation - OE devices are not verified according to en-minute procedure. “It is very pointless and unintelligible how it is possible for the same document for five tear to be acceptable and not FDT, but for two tear to be acceptable and orderly. When we are at this point, we find that even OEs declared responsible in terms of this demand and one winner (from the assessment commission, Ud. Procuring director as well as O panel HOP) This document (act notial) is equal to what “has offered Saka” or check some of them “Kag Aslhalt&Beni Com”, “Al Trade&Szillari, “Eskavator&Bad”, means that the contracting authority has assessed double-standards by disculating OE in terms of this request of the tender file that OE has favoured OE certain or proclaimed winner”.

The report further notes that, based on criminal confirmation presented by investigators who have presented that even the majority of the OE winners, their offers are irresponsible, based on copies of bids compared to the original ones that have done it in the Ministry of Infrastructure, where it is seen that the Contractive Authority has acted in opposition to the LPP by discriminated against, favourable and misjudged, by the re-evaluation and umd commission. Director of the procurement, Betim Recica.

Special Prosecutor's experts on two pages of report have cited provisions of the Procure Law, which were violated during the re-evaluation of this tender. According to them, Article 1 is being violated, Article 6, econonicsity and efficiency, Article 7 equality in treatment/no discrimination, Article 41 contract giving, Article 42, reporting, Article 59 examination, assessment and comparison of tenders, Article 60 contract-giving criteria, RROUPP, Article 31, tender currency, nine 55 communication modes, ethical procurement code seven relationships with economic operators, tender file contracting& sets of specific conditions. Experts have written in detail what these articles contain.

The report points out that it was the director of procurement, Betim Recica according to criminal discussion, witness statements and the suspects themselves where together with other people they have held and held meetings with OE participants in this activity of procurement outside the official format, namely after working hours and outside the institution's targets during the time of the interval in question, which is contrary to the declaration under oath.

expert thought for O panel EP

Some pages in the report have to do with doubts that the O panel's Motives The EPS decided in favour of the ministry, illegally dismissing company complaints.

“Paneli reviewer in the decision issued on the complaint filed by OE complainers, namely OE complainer Family Co, regarding the company recommended for the contract contract for tears 2 “Gjoka Konduka”, has not responded to complaints, as requested by the LPP, but the review panel has been called to the findings that it met the tender file and the contract report. Based on the announcement of the review panel, as well as the clarifications given in the decision, they appreciate that the same panel has acted in a form, in a sense using as a rationale for rejecting OE Family Co's complaint, consisting O review expert The EPS, but on the other hand, the panel has acted on decisions contrary to O expert expertise. The EPS, rejecting the expert's recommendations to turn a tear 2 into a reassession under the recommendation made by the OSHP expert. With this action of the panel, we find that he has tried to use expert expertise in only a few findings of the expert where they were fit to use it as an excuse in the decision I make during the rejection of a complaint about OE complainers and the same findings have been used in the decision to reason whether OE recommended for contract on the part of the ministry are responsible, while the expert's agreement on finding OE awarded by contract are not taken into account by the review panel, because the recommendation of the expert OE The EPS has been to turn procurement activity into re-evaluation because the findings have violated the PPP's” provisions, the report says.

The report also points out that even O expert The timeline in his expertise findings has been trying to coordinate with the panel as few facts as possible and to be positioned in some smaller findings regarding contract-paid OE bids to enable the panel to have more easily to make a decision to reject the complaint of economic operators as being based.

In view of all the actions of the searching panel on the decision-making case for this procurement and criminal discussion activity of the date 14,06.2019 by No. Ref 06/03-169/2019 by the DSAK, according to prosecutorial experts, there is doubt that the OSHP's review panel, Blerim Dina chairman, Noahi Reference and Goran Milenkovik-member, have made a poor decision after the findings have failed to meet their obligations with the aim of implementing the procurement law and the basic principle of public procurement as equality of parties, budget savings or public money.

“The OE panel reviewer of the OSHP, although OE complaints on many points have been very precise and concrete in terms of OE's offer, as well as in statements given in the investigator allegedly were general complaints and some unstable, but without specifically addressing how it should be, or even the findings of the investigative expert have not taken them to base in all cases, but only where they have had an interest.<>

After analyzing available documentation for this procurement activity, the two experts engaged by the prosecution have concluded that there is a suspicion that the suspects (Authority contractor and the Porcuration Organization) have committed criminal acts that are placed on the burden of criminal prosecution. Suspected officials with actions as well as their actions have damaged the state budget by over 2m euros only on the case of a low-priced failure, as well as favoured irresponsible OE bids and discriminated against the other OE by classifying them as irresponsible with double standards, by which cases have also damaged free and local competition according to the LPP, at the same time the Afarism of the discriminated OE.

So experts have recommended further steps: Interview suspect Ud. Director of Procurement and members of the Commission's Calculating Authority's evaluation of bids and face the OE's original assessment and bids report. Interview O panel member suspects The EPS, interview witnesses, OSHP experts. interviewed by former MI Secretary-General Ne praising Shatri and former procurement director Nexhat Krasniqi. interviewed by the minister, Paul Lekaj. Interview the mentioned sexist M.P. Interview business as complaining parties and making confessions.

This list of names, according to experts, may change after their statements and legal qualifications are taken for allegedly any possible work.

In the upcoming writing, you can read the treatment of statements by experts that all four ministry suspects have submitted to the investigator. How. The procurement director's Ud has given false evidence to the investigator, how one of the members of the evaluation commission says the procurement director told them to sign the re-evaluation report for otherwise someone is waiting outside to put them in the pipe and how the procurement director sent them the list with the names of companies they should announce the winner.