Key fingerprint 9EF0 C41A FBA5 64AA 650A 0259 9C6D CD17 283E 454C

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
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=5a6T
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

		

Contact

If you need help using Tor you can contact WikiLeaks for assistance in setting it up using our simple webchat available at: https://wikileaks.org/talk

If you can use Tor, but need to contact WikiLeaks for other reasons use our secured webchat available at http://wlchatc3pjwpli5r.onion

We recommend contacting us over Tor if you can.

Tor

Tor is an encrypted anonymising network that makes it harder to intercept internet communications, or see where communications are coming from or going to.

In order to use the WikiLeaks public submission system as detailed above you can download the Tor Browser Bundle, which is a Firefox-like browser available for Windows, Mac OS X and GNU/Linux and pre-configured to connect using the anonymising system Tor.

Tails

If you are at high risk and you have the capacity to do so, you can also access the submission system through a secure operating system called Tails. Tails is an operating system launched from a USB stick or a DVD that aim to leaves no traces when the computer is shut down after use and automatically routes your internet traffic through Tor. Tails will require you to have either a USB stick or a DVD at least 4GB big and a laptop or desktop computer.

Tips

Our submission system works hard to preserve your anonymity, but we recommend you also take some of your own precautions. Please review these basic guidelines.

1. Contact us if you have specific problems

If you have a very large submission, or a submission with a complex format, or are a high-risk source, please contact us. In our experience it is always possible to find a custom solution for even the most seemingly difficult situations.

2. What computer to use

If the computer you are uploading from could subsequently be audited in an investigation, consider using a computer that is not easily tied to you. Technical users can also use Tails to help ensure you do not leave any records of your submission on the computer.

3. Do not talk about your submission to others

If you have any issues talk to WikiLeaks. We are the global experts in source protection – it is a complex field. Even those who mean well often do not have the experience or expertise to advise properly. This includes other media organisations.

After

1. Do not talk about your submission to others

If you have any issues talk to WikiLeaks. We are the global experts in source protection – it is a complex field. Even those who mean well often do not have the experience or expertise to advise properly. This includes other media organisations.

2. Act normal

If you are a high-risk source, avoid saying anything or doing anything after submitting which might promote suspicion. In particular, you should try to stick to your normal routine and behaviour.

3. Remove traces of your submission

If you are a high-risk source and the computer you prepared your submission on, or uploaded it from, could subsequently be audited in an investigation, we recommend that you format and dispose of the computer hard drive and any other storage media you used.

In particular, hard drives retain data after formatting which may be visible to a digital forensics team and flash media (USB sticks, memory cards and SSD drives) retain data even after a secure erasure. If you used flash media to store sensitive data, it is important to destroy the media.

If you do this and are a high-risk source you should make sure there are no traces of the clean-up, since such traces themselves may draw suspicion.

4. If you face legal action

If a legal action is brought against you as a result of your submission, there are organisations that may help you. The Courage Foundation is an international organisation dedicated to the protection of journalistic sources. You can find more details at https://www.couragefound.org.

WikiLeaks publishes documents of political or historical importance that are censored or otherwise suppressed. We specialise in strategic global publishing and large archives.

The following is the address of our secure site where you can anonymously upload your documents to WikiLeaks editors. You can only access this submissions system through Tor. (See our Tor tab for more information.) We also advise you to read our tips for sources before submitting.

http://rpzgejae7cxxst5vysqsijblti4duzn3kjsmn43ddi2l3jblhk4a44id.onion (Verify)

If you cannot use Tor, or your submission is very large, or you have specific requirements, WikiLeaks provides several alternative methods. Contact us to discuss how to proceed.


United Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo: Irregularities in the procurement and contract award for the New Car Park at Pristina Airport (ID Case No. 0274-04), 1 Jan 2005

From WikiLeaks

Jump to: navigation, search

Donate to WikiLeaks

Unless otherwise specified, the document described here:

  • Was first publicly revealed by WikiLeaks working with our source.
  • Was classified, confidential, censored or otherwise withheld from the public before release.
  • Is of political, diplomatic, ethical or historical significance.

Any questions about this document's veracity are noted.

The summary is approved by the editorial board.

See here for a detailed explanation of the information on this page.

If you have similar or updated material, see our submission instructions.

Contact us

Press inquiries

Follow updates

Release date
January 12, 2009

Summary

United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (UN OIOS) 1 Jan 2005 report titled "Irregularities in the procurement and contract award for the New Car Park at Pristina Airport [ID Case No. 0274-04]" relating to the United Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo. The report runs to 13 printed pages.

Note
Verified by Sunshine Press editorial board

Download

File | Torrent | Magnet

Further information

Context
International organization
United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services
Authored on
January 1, 2005
File size in bytes
203652
File type information
PDF
Cryptographic identity
SHA256 4e78ee0e6e74e14746f8a51c03692eeb3b66508d46e103672da6f74266d6ea5b


Simple text version follows

           UNITED NATIONS                              NATIONS UNIES
               United Nations Interim                  Mission d'Administration Int�rimaire
     Administration Mission in Kosovo                  des Nations Unies au Kosovo
                                             UNMIK
                            Investigation Task Force
 Irregularities in the procurement and contract award for the New Car Park at
                          Pristina Airport (Case 0274/04)

                                        I.   INTRODUCTION

1. This case arose from an audit report dated 28 February 2003 into the financial
   statements of Pristina International Airport conducted by the Chartered
   Accountants, which led to a general investigation concerning alleged corruption
   and irregularities in the course of procurement activities at Pristina Airport.

2. There are four specific allegations in this report of investigation;
   � a bidder, "Vendor 1" had its bid accepted when it contained no bid security;
   � a bidder, "Vendor 2" handed an open envelope to the PEAP Official,
      containing documents relating to the company's tender submission, including
      two diskettes, after the time for submission of bids had closed;
   � single-source procurement had been requested for the new car park lighting
      system when a competitive process would have sufficed;
   � approval of the contract and the "capital expenditure approval" for the new
      lighting system appear to have been requested retrospectively.

3. In a report on this matter prepared by the PEAP Official and addressed to the
   Divisional Manager, dated 8 October 2002, it is alleged that after a meeting held
   in the PEAP Official's office on 4 October 2002 on this contract, he/she found an
   envelope on his/her desk containing the sum of 5,200. However, this allegation
   forms the substance of a separate report under Case No 218/04.

           II. APPLICABLE TERRITORIAL LAWS AND UNITED NATIONS
                             PROCEDURAL RULES

Section 1 of UNMIK Regulation 1999/24 dated 12 December 1999 as amended,
states that the law applicable in Kosovo shall be:
       a) "The regulations promulgated by the Special Representative of the
           Secretary General (SRSG) and subsidiary instruments issued pursuant to
           those regulations; and
       b) The Law in force in Kosovo on 22 March 1989."

UN Staff Regulations 1.2 (b) stipulates "Staff members shall uphold the highest
standards of efficiency, competence and integrity"

UNMIK Finance Administrative Instruction 1999/2 on Public Procurement using
Kosovo Consolidated Budget Funds provides that:
Article 4.1 � "Competition among and participation in the procurement process shall
be maximised."
Article 4.1.1 � "All Suppliers and Contractors and their tenders shall be treated fairly,
equally, and non-discriminatorily, without favouritism or prejudice and each Tender
shall be judged on its merits."


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article 4.3.3. � "If a consultant or any principal, officer or employee of such
consultant has participated or will participate in any manner in the preparation of the
UNMIK Kosovo Interim Administration's Tendering for a contract, including but not
limited to preparations of specifications or any other Tender Documents, no such
consultant nor any principal officer or employee of such consultant, no "related
person" nor any "illegal payer" may tender for or sponsor or participate in the
Tendering for such contract."
Article 6.3.3 � "When the total estimated value of the contract exceeds DM
1,000,000, the Deputy Special Representative for Civil Administration or the Deputy
Special Representative for Reconstruction may approve
        (a) deviations from the normal procedures specified in Articles 19-31 or
        (b) the use of any method of payment."
Article 8.2 �"Procuring entities shall maintain records of Public Procurement in
sufficient details for the PPRB to verify that the provisions of this Instruction have
been followed. For each procurement, the record shall contain as a minimum:
justification pursuant to 6.3, (a) of the method of procurement chosen if that method
differs from the normal method specified by this Instructions, or (b) of the procedures
followed if they differ from the normal procedures specified by this instructions for the
method of procurement chosen..."
Article 24 � "Direct Single Source Procurement may be used for Goods, Works or
Ancillary Physical Services:
24.1 - If such Direct Single Source Procurement is not used to
        24.1.1 - Avoid Competition
        24.1.2 � Discriminate against other suppliers and
24.2 � Direct Single Source Procurement is the appropriate method to be used:
        24.2.1 as the Goods, Works or Services can be provided by only one
        supplier;......."
Article 31 � "Emergency Procurement may be used for goods, Works or Services if:
        31.1 � the need for the procurement is urgent;
        31.2 � the conditions giving rise to the urgency were not under the control of
        nor due to the negligence or other action(s) of either the Requesting or the
        Procuring Entity;
        31.3 the urgency could not reasonably have been foreseen; and 31.4 the
        method of Emergency Procurement is not utilized;
               31.4.1 - to avoid competition in quality and costs;
               31.4.2 � to avoid the normal requirements of transparency; nor
               31.4.3 to discriminate against other suppliers"

UN Staff Rule 110.1: Misconduct. "Failure by a staff member to comply with his or
her obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, the Staff Regulations and
the Staff Rules or other relevant administrative issuances, or to observe the
standards of conduct expected of an international civil servant, may amount to
unsatisfactory conduct within the meaning of staff regulation 10.2, leading to the
institution of disciplinary measures for misconduct."

                                  III. METHODOLOGY

4. This investigation was conducted pursuant to Executive Decision No 2003/16 on
   the establishment of the Investigation Task Force. The ITF investigators
   conducted interviews with persons indicated to be witnesses and persons
   potentially implicated in the allegations; by obtaining documents from the Pristina
   Airport administration and from Pillar IV, which were then analysed for relevance
   to the inquiry at hand.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          IV. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

5. Pristina International Airport constitutes a state owned enterprise under
   Yugoslavian law. The assets of the airport include the runways, terminal
   buildings, hanger, fuel storage facilities and equipment. During the period
   covered by this investigation, from 2001 until 2003, they were maintained by the
   Public Enterprise Airport Pristina, (PEAP) in cooperation with Military Units of the
   Kosovo Force (KFOR). Pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution
   1244 dated 10 June 1999, and UNMIK Regulation No 1/1999 dated 25 July 1999.
   UNMIK is mandated to administer the territory of Kosovo, including state owned
   and publicly owned assets. This includes Pristina International Airport.

6. Until the end of June 2002, responsibility for the administration of the Pristina
   Airport was entrusted to the Civil Administration Pillar (Pillar II) of UNMIK,
   including Official 1 and Official 2. Further involved in this case was Department of
   Transport and Infrastructure (DOTI) Official 1. The DOTI was later known as the
   Transport Sector of the UNMIK Directorate of Infrastructure Affairs. DOTI Official
   1 left UNMIK at the end of June 2002. DOTI Official 2 was recruited by the DOTI
   as an international staff member on 31 July 2000 in charge of airport operations
   and reporting to DOTI Official 1 and continued in this role until 30 September
   2001. Engineering expertise was provided by a series of engineers seconded
   from the French Army, specifically Airport Engineer 1, Airport Engineer 2, and
   Airport Engineer 3, and later by a consultant from the Consulting Company.

7. On 1 July 2002, the responsibility for the administration of the Airport passed
   from Pillar II to the Kosovo Trust Agency (KTA) and Pillar IV. The Divisional
   Manager was appointed. Under him/her were the PEAP Official and Official 3.

8. On 1 April 2004, Pristina International Airport, which had until that time been
   under the jurisdiction of KFOR, was handed over to civilian jurisdiction, under
   ICAO regulations.

9. It is against this background of change that procurement procedures relating to
   the following contract have been examined.

10. This report relates to the Contract for the construction of a new car park at
    Pristina Airport. The value of the contract was 801,438. It also deals with a
    single source contract to supply and install the lighting system at the airport car
    park in the sum of 34,501 and a second contract to supply and install a cover for
    the automatic barriers in the new car park in the sum of 24,864.

11. The case concerns allegations of corruption and irregularities in the tender
    procedures arising out of the procurement and contract award for the
    construction of the new car park at Pristina Airport; a single source contract to
    supply and install the lighting system at the airport car park and a further contract
    to supply and install a cover for the automatic barriers in the new car park.

12. An internal memorandum from DOTI Official 2 and Airport Engineer 1 dated 10
    August 2001 indicates that the initial proposal to provide a new car park came
    from the PEAP Official, due to flooding in the area being used as the airport car
    park at that time, although the proposal was postponed until the following year to


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   ensure that the tender was launched in an appropriate manner, and to ensure
   that necessary funding was in place.

                             V. INVESTIGATIVE DETAILS

                                      Allegation 1:
   (It is alleged that two draft bid evaluation reports for the car park construction
 indicate that Vendor 1 had no bid security information in their bid documentation.
 However, the company is indicated in the final bid evaluation report and document
  entitled "report about rejection of the companies" to have passed the evaluation
        before being awarded the contract for the construction of the car park.)

13. A tender exercise was launched on 16 August 2002 for the construction of a new
    car park at Pristina Airport. The bid submission deadline was 14 September
    2002. The tender evaluation process occurred on 17 September 2002 according
    to an undated letter written by the Procurement Officer to the members of the
    evaluation committee.

14. Two undated draft bid evaluation reports for the car park construction indicate
    that Vendor 1 had no bid security, (i.e. that it had not submitted a security from its
    Bank to guarantee its participation in the tender). However, a final bid evaluation
    report dated 30 September 2002 indicates that the contractor "Vendor 1" passed
    the evaluation and was awarded the contract for the construction of the car park.

15. A contractual agreement between UNMIK and Vendor 1, dated 1 October 2002,
   was signed by Official 4 Pillar IV on behalf of Pristina Airport. Information
   received from the Procurement Officer suggests it was signed by Vendor 1
   Representative during a meeting on 5 October 2002.

16. When asked about the apparent difference between the two draft bid evaluation
    reports and the final bid evaluation report in his/her interview, a Pristina Airport
    Civil Engineer, who was on the evaluation committee, indicated that the first two
    draft bid evaluation reports related to the tender opening meeting at which he/she
    was not present. Therefore, he/she could not indicate the reason for the
    comments. He/she added that the final bid evaluation document dealt with the
    technical evaluation of the tender, and confirmed that Vendor 1 submitted correct
    documentation, as a result of which it was selected as one of the companies that
    fulfilled the specifications required in the tender.

17. The Procurement Officer indicated that the first two draft evaluation bids were
    given to him/her by the evaluation committee as working sheets and added that
    he/she did not view the draft documents as being official documents as they were
    not signed.
    The Procurement Officer added: "The bank guarantee of Vendor 1 had all the
    conditions and they submitted the request for this project but the bank had
    forgotten to include the guarantee price, but referred to the project, which
    indirectly includes the sum. Regarding this project, this was the first project on
    which I worked at the airport and we decided that the bank guarantee would not
    be a decisive factor in the evaluation decision. We, the Committee, where I had
    no evaluation right, went for a technical evaluation in deciding which company
    would do the job. This was the verbal decision of the evaluation committee." The
    Procurement Officer also added "since this was one of the first evaluations we
    tolerated that aspect, but regarding the other projects we were stricter."


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18. The ITF is unable to verify the Procurement Officer's statement, as it has not
    seen a copy of the bid security in the contract file. In addition, the ITF was not
    able to interview Vendor 1, since its representative is a potential suspect in an
    ongoing police investigation (ITF Case 218/02).

19. A bank guarantee for advance payment and a performance security have been
    located in the contract file. However, they are both dated 16 October 2002, after
    the contract had been signed.

20. When asked what type of document Vendor 1 had submitted in support of its bid
    and it whereabouts, the Procurement Officer told the ITF "the original copy of
    Bank Guarantee for Offer security was given back to Vendor 1 based on the rules
    since it brought the guarantee for performance and a copy has to be here in the
    file but it can be found at the Bank." Due to data protection provisions, the ITF
    was unable to secure a copy of it.

                                       Allegation 2:
 (It is alleged in a note from Airport Engineer 3 to the Procurement Officer dated 26
   September 2002, that Vendor 2 handed an open envelope to the PEAP Official
 containing documents relating to the company's tender submission, including two
  disks, after the time for submission of bids had closed, and that the PEAP Official
                  gave the envelope to Airport Engineer 3 for checking.)

21. A note from Airport Engineer 3 to the Procurement Officer, dated 26 September
    2002, indicates that Vendor 2 handed an open envelope containing tender
    documents and two diskettes to the PEAP official, which he/she then handed to
    Airport Engineer 3 for evaluation. It is not clear whether the envelopes contained
    either a complete bid or the technical part of the tender documents.

22. The note also indicates that the evaluation committee were on the point of
    finishing their evaluation for the new car park. Therefore the time for submission
    of tenders had closed.

23. Airport Engineer 3's note states that the PEAP Official had asked the Consulting
    Company to draft the technical specifications and alleges that Vendor 2 were
    improperly given the opportunity to examine the tender specifications, prior to
    submitting their bid.

24. The ITF has been unable to contact Airport Engineer 3 to discuss the incident,
    despite efforts to trace him/her through the Authorities of his/her country. In
    addition, it was not possible to conduct an interview with Vendor 2
    Representative, since he/she is no longer based in Kosovo.

25. A letter dated 25 September 2002 from the Consulting Company to PEAP,
    indicates that the company prepared the complete dossier for the airport car park
    and submitted it to PEAP on 14 June 2002. The Consultant confirmed this to the
    ITF and explained that the Consulting Company had drafted the technical
    specifications and drawings for the car park as an introductory donation to
    promote its services.

26. When the PEAP Official was asked in interview by the ITF, on what date the
    incident involving Vendor 2 took place, he/she gave a long, convoluted and


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   evasive response. The PEAP Official first sought to confuse the issue by
   suggesting that the documents in the envelope handed to him/her were the
   technical specifications for the car park produced by the Consulting Company,
   which formed the basis of the ongoing evaluation being undertaken by the
   evaluation committee. It was then pointed out to him/her that PEAP had received
   the technical specifications on 14 June 2002. Therefore, the evaluation
   committee would already have been in possession of them. Following this,
   he/she changed his answer and indicated that he/she was confused and was not
   aware about the date.

27. The PEAP Official added that Vendor 2 Representative brought a package tied
    with string to the airport, rather than an open envelope, and stated that he/she
    was informed it contained the technical specifications in hardcopy and soft copy
    as well as the tender documents for the car park tender. However, he/she could
    not specify the date on which this was alleged to have happened.

28. The PEAP Official was asked whether Vendor 2 had already submitted a bid for
    the contract to build the new car park. The PEAP Official stated "I don't
    remember. I believe no. I don't know, but according to the discussion that I had
    with the Divisional Manager and Airport Engineer 3, the latter told us that Vendor
    2 should be eliminated because they brought the document physically (to the
    Airport) and he/she must have had the data beforehand. Therefore Vendor 2
    should not be allowed to compete in the tender."

29. This response is contradictory. If Vendor 2 had not submitted a bid by 26
    September 2002, then they would have been too late to do so at the date of this
    incident. It should be noted that time for submission of bids closed on 14
    September 2002 and the memorandum from Airport Engineer 3 states that the
    evaluation had nearly finished. The question as to whether the bid was submitted
    to the Airport physically or by other means is immaterial.

30. The ITF asked the Divisional Manager whether a meeting had been held with the
    PEAP Official and Airport Engineer 3 to which he replied, "Not to my knowledge."
    There are no notes of any meeting and the Divisional Manager indicated that
    he/she did not have any idea what this incident concerned.

31. The PEAP Official denied giving the open envelope to Airport Engineer 3 to
    evaluate, indicating only that he/she was present when Vendor 2 Representative
    gave the envelope to Airport Engineer 3.

32. The PEAP Official was asked why Vendor 2 representative would have given the
    document or offer to Airport Engineer 3, when Section 2 of the bidding
    documents at paragraph 14.2a states that the Procurement Officer is the person
    to whom bids should be submitted. The PEAP Official replied "......Vendor 2
    brought the technical specifications to be checked by Airport Engineer 3 and to
    be delivered to the office of the procurement to the Procurement Officer for
    tender procedures."

33. Having regard to the period during which the incident took place, this is unlikely,
    since the bid opening meeting had already taken place. An alternative
    explanation, in the view of the ITF, for handing the documents to Airport Engineer
    3 is that he/she was a member of the evaluation committee and the documents


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   represented an out of time or altered bid, or tender specifications which had been
   irregularly received by Vendor 2.

                                     Allegation 3:
 (It is alleged that single-source procurement had been requested for the new car
   park lighting system when a competitive process would have sufficed, had the
project for the construction of the car park been adequately planned and executed.)

34. Article 31 of UNMIK Finance Administrative Instruction 1999/2 on Public
    Procurement, provides that emergency procurement may be used for goods,
    works or services if the need for the procurement is urgent; the conditions giving
    rise to the urgency were not under the control of nor due to the negligence or
    other action(s) of either the requesting or the procuring entity and the urgency
    could not reasonably have been foreseen.

35. Following the tender procedure in September 2002, Vendor 1 was awarded the
    contract for the construction of the car park and a contractual agreement was
    signed on 1 October 2002.

36. Less than one month later, a memorandum from the Pristina Airport Civil
    Engineer to the Divisional Manager dated 21 October 2002 requested single-
    source procurement for the lighting system at the car park. The justification for
    the single source was that the lighting pillars had no cable, the transformer was
    obstructed, and there was no electricity supply for the light.

37. The request was approved by the Divisional Manager on 25 October 2002 and
    authorised as single-source procurement by a Staff Member of UNMIK Office of
    the Legal Adviser, on behalf of the KTA Official on 28 October 2002.

38. A later memorandum from the Divisional Manager to the KTA Official dated 13
    April 2003, indicates that:
    "the lighting system in the car park had to be installed first so that work on the
    asphalting of the surface and kerbstone could go ahead, as this system was
    located under the surface of these structures."

39. This justification raises the question as to why the lighting system was not
    included in the contract for the construction of the main car park.

40. When asked why the lighting system was not included in the contract for the
    construction of the main car park, the Pristina Airport Civil Engineer stated:
    "This is a very good question that concerned me as well. I think that the previous
    system was not done properly and for that reason it started to be damaged. For
    example the electric cables started to get cut due to the vehicles that were
    passing there. Cables were simply covered by gravel and they were not deep
    enough under ground."

41. The Pristina Airport Civil Engineer was asked whether in view of this, any tests
    were carried out on the car park lighting system. He /she replied:
    "I do not know whether a test was carried out or not in this regard, but I can say
    that it was very clear that the lighting system was not working due to the fact that
    the electric cables were cut in many places."


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

42. DOTI Official 2 who left UNMIK employ before the tender for the car park was
    launched, confirmed this by stating:
    "The cable in the car park, which was separate from the one connecting the
    Airport to the electricity sub-station, was very badly damaged by heavy vehicles
    by about December 2000-January 2001, due the fact that it had not been laid
    sufficiently deep under the ground."

43. The PEAP Official in contrast, when asked why the lighting system was not
    included in the contract for the construction of the main car park stated:
    "In the part of the car park which was not being used, the cables were damaged
    by KFOR and civilian vehicles to the extent that they were laid bare."...
    "We did not include a new lighting system because we thought the cables were
    undamaged. There were not too many arguments which indicated the cables
    were damaged until the work started."

44. A memorandum from DOTI Official 2 and Airport Engineer 1 indicates that the
    area of ground used as the Airport car park also suffered from flooding.

45. The Consultant, from the Consulting Company, the company which designed the
    car park, was asked whether his technical specifications included a lighting
    system. He/she replied:
    "The technical specifications did not include provision for a lighting system...
    and at that time, my contact was the PEAP Official. The requirements given to
    me by the PEAP Official were of a general nature, such as the number of car
    parking spaces and the location of the car park. I remember that the poles for the
    lights were already there."

46. In summary, the lighting system was not included in the contract for the
    construction of the main car park, due to poor management and forward
    planning.

                                       Allegation 4
 (It is alleged that approval of the contract and the "capital expenditure approval" for
 the new lighting system appears to have been requested retrospectively. (i.e. after
                             the work had been completed.)

47. A capital expenditure approval form for the lighting system was signed by the
    Divisional Manager on 2 November 2002 and countersigned on 6 November
    2002 by the Staff Member of UNMIK Office of the Legal Adviser.

48. The Airport signed a contract with Vendor 1 to supply and install the lighting
    system at the airport car park on 29 January 2003. The value of the contract was
    34,501.

49. A note dated 30 January 2003 from the Procurement Officer to Official 5 Pillar IV,
    indicates a request was made for Official 5's authorisation to enter into the
    contract.

50. A routing slip from a KTA Internal Auditor to the KTA Official dated 6 March 2003,
    raises concerns at the authorisation of a single source procurement for the
    contract to supply and install the lighting system at the airport car park.
    Specifically, the KTA Internal Auditor asserts that the documentation does not
    support single source procurement, there is no evidence the public procurement


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   rules had been followed and there is no evidence the contract had been signed
   off by the legal department. As a result the KTA Internal Auditor refused to give
   approval for the capital expenditure.

51. Analysis of a memorandum from the Divisional Manager to the KTA Official dated
    13 April 2003, in response to the refusal of the KTA Internal Auditor to approve
    capital expenditure for the contract to supply and install the lighting system at the
    airport car park, indicates at item 2 that due to the necessity to complete the
    asphalting of the car park, the Divisional Manager gave the go ahead for the work
    on the car park lighting system, prior to receiving capital expenditure approval in
    any event.

52. The note is confirmed by an email from the KTA Official to the Divisional Manager
    dated 14 April 2003 in which he/she reminds the Divisional Manager that he/she
    must obtain capital expenditure approval prior to initiating procurement,
    contracting and implementation procedures.

53. The Divisional Manager, when asked in interview whether he/she obtained
    financial approval retrospectively stated:
    "That is correct. From memory, this is one of the few times I did this, because at
    this time clearance of document by the KTA was incredibly slow to the extent that
    it would have affected the operational viability of the airport. I gave approval for
    the work to go ahead but did not approve for any monies to be paid. I took the
    decision with great reluctance because the previous experience I had had with
    the KTA's slow procedure in approvals would have resulted in the bad weather
    setting in before the car park could be partially completed."

54. A bid evaluation report dated 24 June 2003, indicates that a competitive tender
    was held for the award of a contract to provide a covering for the automatic
    barriers in the car park. The report confirmed that the contract was awarded to
    the contractor Vendor 1.

55. A contract was signed by the Divisional Manager on behalf of Pristina Airport with
    Vendor 1 on 25 June 2003 in the sum of 24 864.96. Whilst it is note that this
    was done buy means of competitive tender, it should have been included in the
    tender for the new car park.

                              VII. Analysis of evidence
                                     Allegation 1

56. Two draft bid evaluation reports indicate in the "preliminary examination" section
    that Vendor 1 had no bid security. In the first document, the wording "no bid
    security" is written in manuscript and in the second the Albanian equivalent also
    indicates the same information. Neither document is signed nor has the ITF been
    unable to identify the author of the documents.

57. In the final bid evaluation report, the bid from Vendor 1 is indicated to have
    contained complete documentation, been technically responsive, commercially
    responsive, have the correct bid validity and be acceptable for financial
    examination.

58. An undated report detailing the reasons for rejection of ten companies indicates,
    inter alia, that certain companies did not have their bid security in the format as


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   requested, or that the bid security was not valid as requested. In addition, the
   report indicates views concerning the pricing level. However, the only comment
   referring to Vendor 1 is the word, "passed".

59. Four companies are indicated to have bid at a "high price", despite the fact that
    their prices were lower than the second placed company against whose name
    there was no comment.

60. The ITF has been unable to verify the format of the bank guarantee submitted in
    support of its bid, since no copy of it was left on the file. However, on a strict
    interpretation of the rules, based upon the draft evaluation report and the
    Procurement Officer's response in his/her interview dated 6 July 2004, Vendor 1
    did not submit a bank guarantee in accordance with the requirements of the
    tender rules.

61. Having regard to the fact that an undated report detailing the reasons for rejection
    of ten companies indicates inter alia that certain companies did not have their bid
    security in the format as requested, or that the bid security was not valid as
    requested, this suggests that the evaluation of the bids for the car park tender
    was inconsistent.

62. In summary, evidence indicates that Vendor 1, which was awarded the contract
    for the construction of the new car park, did not submit a bank guarantee in
    accordance with the requirements of the tender rules. In addition, the decision to
    award the tender to Vendor 1 appears to be based on an inconsistent evaluation
    of the bids, from which it appears to have benefited.

63. Whilst noting that this was one of the Procurement Officer's first tender exercises
    at the Airport, he/she was the procurement specialist present at the time and
    therefore, responsible for the process.

                                     Allegation 2

64. Evidence in the note of Airport Engineer 3 dated 26 September 2002 suggests
    that the PEAP Official received an open envelope from Vendor 2, after the date
    on which the evaluation was due to take place, which he/she then passed to
    Airport Engineer 3 to evaluate. The contents of the envelope appear to have
    been either technical documents received by Vendor 2 with a view to affording
    the company an advantage in the tender for the new car park, or an out of time
    bid by the company.

65. The attempt by Vendor 2 to obtain an improper advantage in the tender
    procedure appears to have occurred with the apparent knowledge and
    acquiescence of the PEAP Official. Whilst it is noted that the Procurement Officer
    excluded the company from the tender, it should have been the responsibility of
    the PEAP Official to draw the matter to the Procurement Officer's attention and
    take appropriate action.

66. The PEAP Official's responses in interview when asked about the incident, lead
    the ITF to doubt the truthfulness of his evidence, and suggest irregular conduct.

                                     Allegation 3


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

67. The ground on which the car park was to be built was known to be prone to
    flooding and the cables in the area of the new car park were clearly damaged a
    long time before the contract for the main car park was signed. In addition, the
    cables for the lighting system had to go under the main car park. It therefore
    represents poor management and forward planning that no provision was made
    for a lighting system in the contract for the main car park and no tests were
    carried out to see whether the existing car park lighting system worked prior to
    work beginning on the car park.

68. The conditions required by Article 31 of UNMIK Finance Administrative
   Instruction 1999/2 on Public Procurement to justify an emergency procurement
   procedure are not fulfilled in this case, since the single source / emergency
   procurement arose due to poor forward planning and the urgency could
   reasonably have been foreseen.

69. The persons responsible for these shortcomings are firstly, the PEAP Official,
    who proposed the project, together with persons responsible for checking the
    main specifications and contract for the main car park, specifically the Airport
    engineers present at the time. Airport Engineer 2 and to a lesser extent, Airport
    Engineer 3 who took over in July 2002.

70. A second contract for a canopy over the entry barriers was tendered using the
    competitive shopping procedure in June 2003 and a contract awarded to Vendor
    1. Whilst the tender process appears to comply with competitive procedures, it
    should also have formed part of the main car park tender.

                                    Allegation 4:

71. Evidence indicates the Divisional Manager gave the approval to proceed with the
   work on the car park lighting system prior to obtaining the necessary capital
   expenditure approval.

                                   VIII. CONCLUSIONS

72. Evidence indicates that Vendor 1, which was awarded the contract for the
    construction of the new car park, did not submit a bank guarantee in accordance
    with the requirements of the tender rules. In addition, the decision to award the
    tender to Vendor 1 appears to be based on an inconsistent evaluation of the bids,
    from which it appears to have benefited.

73. Whilst noting that this was one of the Procurement Officer's first tender exercises
    at the Airport, he/she was the procurement specialist present at the time.

74. Evidence in the note of Airport Engineer 3 dated 26 September 2002 suggests
    that the PEAP Official received an open envelope from the company Vendor 2,
    after the date on which the evaluation of the tenders was due to take place, which
    he/she then passed to Airport Engineer 3 to evaluate. The contents of the
    envelope appear to have been either technical documents received by Vendor 2
    with a view to affording the company an advantage in the tender for the new car
    park, or an out of time bid by the company.

75. This appears to have occurred with the apparent knowledge and acquiescence of
    the PEAP Official. Whilst it is noted that the Procurement Officer excluded the


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   company from the tender, it should have been the responsibility of the PEAP
   Official to draw the matter to the Procurement Officer's attention and take
   appropriate action.

76. The PEAP Official's responses in interview, when asked about the incident lead
    the ITF to doubt the truthfulness of his evidence, and suggest irregular conduct.

77. The entire process therefore represents poor management and forward planning
    in that no provision was made for a lighting system in the contract for the main
    car park and no tests were carried out to see whether the existing car park
    lighting system worked prior to work beginning on the car park.

78. The conditions required by Article 31 of UNMIK Finance Administrative
    Instruction 1999/2 on Public Procurement to justify an emergency procurement
    procedure are not fulfilled, since the single source / emergency procurement
    arose due to poor forward planning and the urgency could reasonably have been
    foreseen

79. The persons responsible for these shortcomings are firstly, the PEAP Official who
    proposed the project, together with persons responsible for checking the main
    specifications and managing the contract for the main car park, specifically the
    Airport engineers present at the time Airport Engineer 2 and to a lesser extent,
    Airport Engineer 3.

80. A second contract for a canopy over the entry barriers was tendered using the
    competitive shopping procedure in June 2003 and a contract awarded to Vendor
    1. Whilst the tender process appears to comply with competitive procedures, it
    should also have formed part of the main car park tender.

81. Evidence indicates the Divisional Manager gave the approval to proceed with the
    work on the car park lighting system prior to obtaining capital expenditure
    approval.

                             XI. RECOMMENDATIONS

82. The ITF offers the following recommendations:

   It is recommended that UNMIK considers and reviews the performance of the
   Procurement Officer in the conduct of the Car Park tender exercise for any action
   deemed appropriate. (IV04/274/01);

   It is recommended that the PEAP Official's failures in respect of his/her actions in
   the incident concerning Vendor 2, and in his/her failure to fulfil his/her
   responsibilities in the management and forward planning of the project for the
   construction of the new car park, be reviewed for any action deemed appropriate.
   (IV04/274/02);

   It is recommended that UNMIK review the roles of the Airport engineers present
   at the time, Airport Engineer 2 and to a lesser extent, Airport Engineer 3, for any
   appropriate action deemed necessary. (IV04/274/03);

   It is recommended that the ITF's findings concerning the PEAP Official's evasive
   and contradictory responses in interview be considered, together with his/her


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

apparent unwillingness to accept managerial responsibility, for any appropriate
action deemed necessary. (IV04/274/04);

It is recommended that UNMIK review the performance of the Divisional Manager
in approving the contract for the car park lighting system prior to obtaining capital
expenditure approval and in light of the fact that the Divisional Manager has left
the Mission, this report should be placed on his personnel file for future
reference. (IV04/274/05)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Personal tools