Author: Olga Diaconu
The full original version can be accessed here
In many cases, the distortion of competition occurs at the design stage of the works, when the author of the project carries out the project in such a way as to determine the contractor awarded the contract to subcontract the author of the project or to purchase goods/services, including works, from them. When there is no consensus between the contractor and the author of the project, the situation can degenerate into conflicts or even litigation in courts, which causes the works to be delayed for years. Citizens who cannot benefit from services they need, as a result of the delay in the execution of the works, end up suffering most.
Such was the case with the construction of the wastewater treatment plant with a volume of 22.5 m3/day for the village of Cioburciu, Ștefan Vodă district, from sources from the National Ecological Fund. The works were to be completed within three months, until the end of 2019. Since then, the deadline for the execution of the contract has been repeatedly extended. The last additional agreement was concluded on 04.12.2022, and it extended the term of the contract by October 31, 2023. The reason for the extension of the deadline was a dispute in court between the contractor “Ivis Construct” S.R.L. and the project designer Tiluana S.R.L., which was also subcontracted by “Ivis Construct” S.R.L.
Returning to the stage of conducting the procurement procedure, we note that the contractor had not indicated any subcontractors or associates in the ESPD or other related documents. Therefore, no intention to subcontract the project designer “Tiluana” S.R.L. could be envisioned.
Some hints can be caught from the clarification requests and responses to them, which can be found in the respective section of the Mtender system. Some potential bidders accused the contracting authority of promoting the economic entity Tiluana S.R.L, because the name of this company was referred to in the expenditure estimates of the award documentation. The contracting authority argued that Tiluana S.R.L was the company which developed the technical project, and their name in the expenditure estimates was due to this company being the author of the technical project, and would not have had any interest in obtaining a contract. At the same time, the contracting authority added that, no matter who was awarded the tender, they would have had to contact the author of the project, who would provide project supervision services. This did not do much to reassure potential bidders. They further stated that Tiluana S.R.L was not a project designer, but a producer/distributor of water treatment technologies, the very name of this company being included in the “Technological equipment” section. They mentioned that Tiluana S.R.L. would have been promoted by the contracting authority, so regardless of who would have obtained the public procurement contract, they would have been obliged to purchase the technologies sold by “Tiluana” S.R.L. on an exclusive basis.
Acest material este realizat în cadrul proiectului ”Banii Publici sunt și Banii Mei!”, implementat de Asociația pentru Guvernare Eficientă și Responsabilă AGER cu susținerea financiară din partea National Endowment for Democracy (NED).