The state stifles the hope of super-talent youth: Kosovo pilot victim in competition

 Amir Qrolli, one of the rare driving talents, is being discriminated against by the state. Licensed for pilot in Skopje, a graduate of the same degree in Kosovo, had decided to compete in the Civil Aviation Authority (AAC) for the position of aviation expert, but had not been accepted. During the candidates' assessment, additional criteria required that they have training conducted. Periscope has found that during setting the criteria, the Central Procurement Agency has limited competition by creating discriminating circumstances, or by adapting criteria for a specific company and thus favouring it during the tender profit race.

A few weeks ago, Amir applied to AAC in a position dealing with the commitment of an aviation expert. After reading all the criteria, he decided to compete. But he fell during the candidates ' assessment, for in addition to the diploma requirement, the training criteria were set there. Amir, the pilot's license has not been accepted, but any training has been requested, which is a markedly lower scale.

About ten years ago, Qorrolli as 16 years old had begun training to be equipped with licenses for driving private planes. After a year and a half, at the age of 17 at Stenkovec Airport in Skopje, the young from Pristina was equipped with private pilot licenses, since there is no such opportunity in Kosovo.

In addition, he was educated in his native country, being equipped with a degree as a Bachelor of Arts in Air Traffic and Transport.

Separating Criteria

AAC requested an expert through tender procedures, Central Procurement Agency i - AQP, which is responsible for developing joint procurements for contracting authorities. Consequently, this institution carried out all procurements for Kosovo agencies, which are in considerable number. AQP does procurement activity for AAC as well. A few weeks ago, it has taken over to carry out the procurement activity “expert engagement for the Kosovo Civil Aviation Authority”.

Periscope has found that during the set of criteria, AQP has limited competition by creating discriminatory circumstances, or by adapting the DT criteria for a particular company, and thus favouring it during the tender profit race.

This tender has been divided into two pieces- tear 1: Aviation expert, and tear 2: Project management and reporting expert.

The projected value of the contract for two tears was 54,000 euros.

Lot 2 has been cancelled in the absence of responsible bids.

For tear1, four economic operators have competed -- namely, persons, Amir Qrolli, Jeton Istog, Ersen Shilek and Bafti Sallah.

The AQP has recommended the contract, Ersen Shilek, worth the offer 34, 200,000 euros in length of 36 months.

The main criteria have been the cheapest prize, and Qroll had set cheaper prices than the recommended contract candidate for about 150,000 euros, but has been eliminated with the argument that he has not met two requirements.

According to the AQP's assessment commission, candidates Ersen Scheleku and Jeton Istog have met all technical and professional requirements.

The criteria placed in technical and professional capacity has been the required documentary testimony: The physicist must have completed at least one professional training in the field of aviation by international institutions, I ATA, ACI, or EXOCTROL.

“Armir Qrolli has not met technical professional conditions as follows: Candidate Armir Qrolli in his bid has not testified that any training has been completed in the civil aviation field, according to the FDT at 7.1 points in the tender file, and has not met properly the tender form where there is disagreement between the price description and the form submitted where the total value in description is 18,720, while on the form it is 520. Therefore, based on Article 39.8 of RRUOP, his offer is considered irresponsible”, the AQP's assessment of the Qroll bid says.

According to documents in charge of the E-procurement, Periscop has found that Qorroll, instead of a professional training certificate in the field of aviation, has provided with pilot licenses, which is a markedly higher scale, as that document allows him to pilot, while with training certificates he cannot be piloted, or proves that one is more professional in the aviation field, as the license itself receives training over a year-old.

In addition, this requirement has been in conflict with Law No3 /L-051 for the Civil Aviation Authority.

Article 37 of this law - License and Qualification of Aviation Staff, says “Any person who acts as aviation personnel should possess and proper qualifications issued or declared valid by the AAC, under this law and relevant implementation regulations. And the classification means every note on the license, which highlights conditions, privileges, or special restrictions. This provision also applies to air navigation and maintenance personnel, as well as to flight operation officials, airline operators and flight instructors”. Also at Article 38 of this law - The license recognition and the rating of aviation personnel, it says that “License and aviation personnel rankings issued or recognized as valid in a foreign country declared valid whether the conditions under which those licenses and rankings were issued are the same or higher than the standards established under this law”.

So the Quroll license that Periscopi has seen that was won by the state of Macedonia is acceptable to the AAC of Kosovo.

In the second argument of the elimination, it is said that “Kroll has not adequately completed the tender form, where there is disagreement between the price description and the form submitted where the total value in description is 18.720 euros while on the form is 520 euros. So based on Article 39.8 of RRUOP his offer is considered irresponsible”.

Based on the Public Procure Law, this reason does not stand, as the price of 520 euros is set for units (for a month), and the other value set in the next document of 16, 720 euros is the total price for 36 months, as long as the contract is required to extend. So, 520 x 36 comes up with the figure of 18, 720 euros, and apparently two different prices are not set. But, in one document, price per unit, and the other, total price. In this matter, during the opening of offers, the contracting authority has been able to seek additional clarifications from the bidder, as this is also seen by law.

This situation has also been clarified by the Public Procureing Regulatory Commission. - KRPP, which is called to do the interpretation of the law. On the KRPP Web site in Questions and Responses is provided clarification to the question “how to act in cases where non-standard prices list when using electronic platform is not signed and sealed by Economic Operator”. In this regard, CRPP wrote that “Conform Article 87, paragraph 2, subparagraph 2.8 of Law No. 04/L for Public Procurement, KRPP offers this legal interpretation: During drafting the tender file, the contracting authority can use two types of price list: Standardized list, and non-standardd list. If the contracting authority uses the price list “standard” (formular from the system), the economic operator has two options available to mark the offered prices: a) The display of prices manually provided by the system in which the price for units and VAT rate for each article is set, b) print the Exel List of Awards (from the Kontratave's notification screen), complete it and reload it to system<5>

Periscop has asked some questions at the AQP address regarding this tender. We are told that questions should be taken to the Civil Aviation Authority, as they say they have drawn up technical specifications.

“Referenced your request to the Civil Aviation Authority task “The implementation of Kosovo Civil Aviation Experts”, please address the Civil Aviation Authority unit in e-mail [email protected] because they are compilers of technical specification/description of work tasks and technical/professional criteria and trust you to respond to your requests”, they have said from AQP for Periscope.

And the Civil Aviation Authority has returned answers only to a Periscope question, not to others related to setting criteria. Even so, The ACC has returned several paragraphs to answer for Periscope and another medium. So a pair of answers sent to two mediums.

Periscop has seen the Qorroll candidate charge an E-procumen photo showing the new AAC director, Bujar Ejupi, together with the contracted candidate Ersen Shileku.

The AAC has answered Periscope's question about what the director Ejupi's connection to the candidate Shileku is. They said that “The AAC has accepted the complaint, with the claims of one candidate, where, among other things, complaints have focused on the fact that one of the candidate participants has a personal connoisseur with the Director General. Director General after accepting this complaint has also responded to the AQP as we follow: I only have a comment with the part where I specifically mentioned, so just the part about the photo that Mr. Armir Qorrol and my comment is like the following: I know Mr. President. The bottle after we worked for a while in an organization, in ANP and the ASHNA. But I don't have any other family connection or business with Mr. Shilek that connects me to the person in question, however, if there is a case of conflict of interest then we should also clarify with Anti-Corruption Agency”.

After asking for aviation expert, the probability of Aviant expert being a celebrity to me is very large, given that I work for about 20 years in the area of aviation, and of course I have met most people in my career with preparation in the area of aviation. So that includes Mr. Armir Qorrol, who for a time has kept practical in AAC, and for which I also have respect for the Air Force field connoisseur. AAC requires all candidates that if they have evidence of abuse in the procurement process they present them to law enforcement institutions. As for Mr. Qrolli, director of AAC, is also familiar with the candidate who has complained, but with other candidates about the fact that expert in the aviation field has been sought, so with Z. Amir Qrolli, since the same one has been practicing in AAC for over three months. The AAC has requested clarification from the Anti-Corruption Agency, that earlier recognition of candidates, or a conflict of interest, and if this is a conflict of interest, then we will demand that the AQP as the host of the procurement process act according to the provisions in force”, it is said further in response.

For correctness towards readers this is the rest of the overall ACC response, but that it has not answered concretely in some of Periscop questions:

The clown didn't want to talk about Periscope. He has said briefly that he will file complaints to the Procuring Organisation within the legal deadline, as he said there has been flagrant violations on the part of the contracting Authority regarding this procurement procedure, which has been currently suspended. /M. B- PERISCOP/