They've stopped the collapses at the Ministry of Lieburn Aliu, suspicions of conflict interest in the “Pristina-Podujevo”

A new find leads to the conflict of enabling interest in one of the five contracts that have been linked to this project.

The contract for tears is signed with the company. “Pro& Co Group” Quick; which has been in conzeroum with the company “Levantia Ingeniria Y Construcion sl”, at the price of the 6. 484, 854, 58 euros. Owner of this company is Armenda Beqiraj, and managing director Kenan Emini.

Based on the signing of the contract, which Periscop has seen, the road construction project was drafted by the company “G EO MAP” contracted by the former Infrastructure Ministry. Based on ARBK dataThe owner of this company is Florent Emin.

Florenti and Armenda are men and women who live together.

The Public Procure Law, specifically, does not allow the same persons who have been involved in design to be under construction.

Public Procure Regulatory Commission ) KCPP is the institution that cares for the management of the Procurement Law on the part of public institutions.

A few days ago, this institution has given an interpretation about whether the method is allowed Project and build.

In other honors, the CAPP has said that the “Economic Operator has no right to participate in a procurement activity or participate in executing any public contract, if such an economic operator, Some employee, manager, manager or manager: 1.1. has been participating in preparing the announcement of the contract or the tender file, or in preparing some of it, used by the respective contracting authority; or 1.2. has accepted assistance in preparing the tender or demanding participation from a person or company that has participated in preparing to announce the contract or the tender file or any part of the latter. 1.3. Being in any case in a conflict of interest, as defined in Article 4, paragraph 1,75”.

So. The law says it is not allowed employees, directors, managers or its director to be involved in both contracts.

To see if the same people were involved in the two contracts, Periscopi made access 14 June to the Ministry of Infrastructure to see all documentation of winning bids. The same have given no answer. Periscope is then addressed to the Agency for Information and Private, which must force the ministry to return an answer that Periscope is still waiting to receive.

Nevertheless, Periscop has found several expert names that are engaged in both companies, which are paid by “Pro & The S.P.K. Group. qp factor between “G EO MAP” but it is not known whether the same were engaged in these two projects specifically. Despite that, what is certain lies in the fact that both mates are owners and leads both companies.

“The ethical procurement code”, in Article 5, has Article “Interest conflict”. Here paragraph 5.4 shows there are three specific points of a public procurement procedure where the conflict of interest can arise:

• within authority contracted!
• Between contracting authority and tenderers
• Between the one who has prepared technical specifications/other supporting documents and tenderers.

.

In January 2023, Deputy Prime Minister Hysen Dumrish through a video presented the project that had drawn up “Geo Map”, and had reflected only the first tear. It was that tears, a few months later, that would win the tender for construction, the same family that made the project.

So why Periscop has several times published articles where serious violations of the law have been proven during the tender process, this inevitable minister has continued to link con.iThe cases, ignoring even the opinions of organs that monitor the process.

Recently, the ministry has ignored two opinions of the Public Procurement Regulatory Commission, which is competent for the implementation and overall development of the public procurement system in Kosovo.

Periscope has found that this institution has asked the ministry to improve certain criteria in the tender file. But, the ministry has not taken them on the basis, until it has continued with the same zeal for leaving contracts with favourable companies.

One opinion, Periscope published days ago, which has to do with establishing a discriminated criterion.

The editorial has had access to another opinion issued by the CRPP. In this opinion, a Periscope scripture has been confirmed in which the ministry has established assessment criteria for contracting that are contrary to the Public Procurement Law.

“CRPP has monitored the Procuration Task with the title: “Enlargement of National Road N25. Pristina - Bessy-Poduyev, Lotus 0.1.2.3 and tear structure 5” Prok. 205-23-21-511” of projected total value: 38,030,326.00 euros, published by 06.01.23, on the ECEprocurement platform, initiated by the Accounting Authority Ministry of Infrastructure and Planning”, is said to have access to.

What has he found? KRPP, which the ministry has not implemented

In this opinion, the CAPP has found that in terms of administrative, qualifying and selective demands, the Contracting Authority has demanded among others the following:

Point IThe contracting authority has established the Declaration of Need and Access to Fund (DNDF), but has not signed it according to legal requirements, the ZKA approval.

In terms of implementation number one, the LPP's Article 9 demands, respectively, KCPP has recommended the Accounting Authority to act in accordance with Lpp 9's Article 8 of the Public Procurement Equipment Article ( RPP, where I specify that; Before it starts with exercising any procurement activity, the area of contracting authority must ensure that formal assessment of needs is made.

This implies that before the initiative of which the procurement activity needs to be met precisely all the requirements of LPP Article 9. Do not meet all the requirements (paragraphs) from the above-mentioned article constitute a violation of the LPP's provisions and secondary public procurement legislation so the AK is recommended to act in accordance with the pre-represented provisions.

As Periscop has seen, this point has been violated by the MMPHI procurement. This, since, as far as the available tool statement is concerned, in the pdf version is the Declaration of d't05.01.203 on page No. 3 which is not signed by responsible persons. As well as the available Declaration of tools that were signed by responsible persons, but on the day of the release of the contract recommendation decision 3105.23.

Point IIAt point 2.3, et, the divide in Lote Minciria has determined that the maximum number of pieces to be rewarded in a tender is: An additional note specified that OE can participate in more than one Ilot, but it's mandatory for each one of the tears to offer, financial capacities circulation in the last three years, bank support, tender safety, equipment and machinery, the professional staff for each tear was separate.

Regarding the count of two, the separation in Lot and the possibility of qualification and participation, KCPP- has recommended that the ministry come in line with Article 18.5 of the RPP, which specifys that: Whenever the AK defines the minimum criteria for economic and financial status or technical and professional capacity, in cases where it limits the number of Lotts that will be rewarded to an OE, the AK should consider meeting the minimum requirements to be the highest amount for the Lotettes the OE competes for.

Periscop has seen that the contracting authority -- MMPHI, as far as the 2.3 point of the tender file is concerned, OE can take part in more than a tear by presenting the capacities required for Lot the highest value. So this point has improved.

III-  Regarding the three-counting, where the ministry has agreed, it specified that in case of the group's leader should have 60% demands, KCPP has recommended that you act in accordance with the RPP namely Article 26.10 which specifys that: When necessary, the contracting authorities can determine in the tender file and in the contract announcement how groups of economic operators should meet the requirements for the economic and financial situation or technical and professional capacity referred to in Article 68 and 69 of the LPP, where the AK could determine a minimum percentage in terms of meeting requirements by the OE group leader.

It's obvious that in this case authority can require a minimum of qualifying requirements for the leader, but not as in your case where you specified 60%. While in terms of qualification criteria over the last 10 years, KCPP recommends you act on paragraph 6.2 of the LPP Article 69.

Based on the final tender file, Periscope has seen this point not addressed by the ministry. It was left as it was.

IV- Point 30.1 The contracting criterion under the criteria, respectively, has specified how under the criterion the staff as follows, the project manager most valued with points, the valued project manager, the most highly esteemed Labour Leader, the firm's leader, the engineer of hydrotechnicals, the most valued electrotechnical engineering, the most valued Geotechniques, the most valuable Geodes, the highly esteemed Geodes, the company of communications, the most valued communications device, the communications engineer, the electronic engineer (commercial engineer, the engineering, or energy guide).

And electrotechnical engineering.

Regarding the contracting criterion, The AK has specified that the contract-giving criterion is the economically responsible tender criteria more favourable, but under the evaluation criteria you've also asked for staff that is also a qualifying requirement.

On this KCPP base, it recommends contracting authority to act on Article 27.10 of the RPP, which specifys that: The minimum criteria for qualification (choice criteria) did not apply as criteria in the contract-making process. The tenders will be considered to have met the minimum requirements in terms of their capacity to perform the contract, which means that the criteria regarding the company's preliminary and historical experiences will not be seen as criteria in the contract-making process.

Based on this KCPP recommends the contracting authority that versus the criteria act according to Article 27.3 of the RPP, which specifys that: If the criteria are economically more favourable, the contract should be given to the tender, which best meets the relevant criteria. Besides the AK price may include other relevant contract subject criteria, such as:

1. Quality Characteristics
2. Operative costs, maintenance and other costs of length
3. Functional, technical, environmental, aesthetic or similar characteristics
4. Post-exit and technical assistance service.

In terms of point 4, which has been one of the main recommendations, because it decided directly on the operators recommended for the contract, Periscope A few days ago, he did an exclusive writing.

“Based on these as high, we recommend the procurement office in the contracting authority -- the Ministry of Infrastructure to correct these concessions to the CAPP recommendations and, in line with the pre-coupling provisions at the end of the CAPPP recommendation.

Periscop has reported that the contracts have been signed, even though there has been an active complaint from an operator in the Procuration Research Organisation. This is a violation of the law. The contract has been signed by the representative of the winning operator, while on the part of the ministry, the firm was signed by Deputy Minister Hysen Dumrish, Secretary, Izedin Bytyqi and Procure Division leader Nexhat Krasniqi, known in opinion as “Father of tenders”.

The complaint at the OSHP has not yet been reviewed, while the works started a few days ago, which were inaugurated a few days ago by Prime Minister Albin Kurti.

“O EXPLAIN Your competencies inform you that for procurement activity titled: : Enlarging National Road N25, Pristina Besie Podujevo, Luti 0, 1, 2, 3 and Lot 5, structures initiated by the Ministry of Environment, Space Planning and Infrastructure, OSHP, for the actual procurement activity, dated 16,06.2023, has accepted amendments to which O The EP has qualified it as complete and for a complaint in protocol number 2023/397, according to Article 113 and 114 provisions has authorized the research expert to review the complaint claims”, said the O's response. Periscop's check.

But is it legal if MMHI signed the contracts for this tender, even without considering complaints by the OSHP? Periscop asked this institution and received this answer:

O The EPS reports that based on LPP Article 112, the pending effect of complaints unless the corresponding panel issues another written ruling and until it makes that decision, the handover of an amendment automatically imposes contracting authority to suspend implementation of the procurement activity with which it has to file complaints in question”, says the O's response. EP.

The ministry, not that it has not suspended its activity, but the complaint has responded with contract signing.

A few days ago, MMPHI has secured five contracts with these companies

For tears 0 is recommended The Economic Operator Group: “Pro& Co Group” Spec; “484, 854, 58 euros.

For tears 1, Group Economic Operators “2 A Group” Exp; “Vega” shpk, worth 8, 447, 477.70 euros.

For tears, 2 Economic Operator Group “Buyar Shaban B. I”; “Kosovo Asfalt” shpk '%; “Bagher-1” far; “El-Bau” Shrik, worth 8, 644, 259.75 euros.

For tears 3 Group Economic Operators “Agbes Building” shpk; “Arbotec” Sharp; “Geo Construction” shpk; “Mineral L.L. C”; “MB Group” Short, worth 9, 254, 811. 42 euros.

For tears 5 Group Economic Operators “Beni-Com” Apple; “Saba Belca” -Dega in Kosovo; “Sherif” Exp, worth 1, 443, 784. 50 euros.

This has not been the only offense the ministry has committed.

Periscop has done some exclusive scriptures regarding the performance of this tender. Two of them have to do with publishing two opinions that have issued the Public Procure Regulatory Commission, which is competent for the implementation and overall development of the public procurement system in Kosovo.

Periscope has found that this institution has asked the ministry to improve certain criteria in the tender file. But, the ministry has not taken them on the basis, until it has continued with the same zeal for leaving contracts with favourable companies.. /Periscopi - Mentor Buzhala/