an hour agoAn Albanian, a Russian and German company: Who are the winners of the MPB's million contract?
Periskopi(3 years ago)
(3 years ago)Paparaci, reported today that two private consortiums have offered in the tender for MPB passports initiated last year. The contract-giving criteria were the lowest price, Paparac reports. The offer of AUGENTIC GmbH and In Groups was for about 100,000 euros lower than its competitor's bid, Muhlbauer [...]
Paparaci, reported today that two private consortiums have offered in the tender for MPB passports initiated last year.
The contract-giving criteria were the lowest price, Paparac reports. The AUGENTIC GmbH and In Group bid was for about 100,000 euros lower than its competitor's bid, the Muhlbauer ID Service GmbH and “YMALKO Sh.P.K.
Battle in O Mondays, suspicions about the contract winner's bid
The Ministry of Internal Affairs recommended the offer of AUGENTIC GmbH and In Group companies for the 12m-euro contract several months ago.
The MPB found them irresponsible and eliminated the two offers of two private consortiums in the race. He canceled the process.
This decision opened the way for a long administrative battle between companies and MPB, which continues even today more than a year after the tender opened.
Procuring body (OSHP), following private consortium complaint “Muhlbauer ID Service GmbH & YMALKO shpk” against the MPB's decision, makes invalid the MPB decision to abort the tender and turn the subject into re-evaluation.
O decision The EPS estimated that the MPB had committed violations during the assessment of bids.
In re-evaluation of the bids, the Interior Ministry's Commission for Re-valuation declares the contract's bid “winner. AU GENTIC GmbH & In Group” worth 12,329,261.27 euros.
The decision has been published on 30 February of this year.
Under the re-evaluating commission's decision, both bids were declared responsible, but since the criteria for contracting were lower prices, MPB recommended contract consortium “AU GENTIC GmbH & In Group”.
Even the bid of the consortium consisting of “Muhlbauer ID Service GmbH” and “YMALKO Sh.P. K.” was declared responsible, but was not recommended for contracting the cause of the bidding price, about 100,000 euros higher than her rival in the race.
This decision by the MPB's re-evaluating commission has proved to be partly unfounded, Paparaci reports.
The expertise of a procurement expert published on May 8th found this.
The OSP expert estimated that the previous OSHP decision, dated February 3rd, “under no circumstance” has concluded that the “offer A U n GENTIC GmbH & In Group” is responsible.
“As far as the rest of the claim that there is no circumstance and in no paragraph has the O. The announcement that the GOE's bid recommended for the contract is responsible, this part of the claim is based on because neither experts nor the research panel has ascertained anything like this”, said the OSP expertise report.
Doubts of favouring “bid A U n GENTIC GmbH & In Group” from MPB deepens with yet another assessment of the OSHP's expertise.
The expert estimates that the MPB violated two provisions of the Public Procurement Law when it recommended contract consortium “AU GENTIC GmbH & In Group”, though the same has not fully met the demand for professional staff.
The recommended private contract consortium had later included technical expert Viktor Jermolonoks on its staff list. His name was not included on the list with the case of handing over her bid on June 10, 2022.
Also, the company recommended for contracting by MPB missed the reference date for technical expert Viktor Jermolonx, because the reference is submitted by 11.10.22, which is the date after the opening of bids announced in 10,06.2022.
The change of the technical expert staff's list is contrary to two articles in the Public Procurement Law, as well as with the contract announcement and tender files.
“Expert discussion and technical expert considering that Mr. Viktors Jermolonoks had not been on the expert list with the tender's delivery case (10.06.2022), explains that the complaint claim at this point is based”, the O expert report says. The EV.
“The E.P. has not addressed the case of the expert. Viktors Jermolonoks, the research expert and technical expert explain that neither OE complainers nor AK itself had mentioned the issue that this expert had been placed on the expert list after the opening date of the bids, but had accepted his certificate” as good, the report says.
