PROCUREMENT REVIEW PANEL

Transcription

1 P.SH 495/15 PROCUREMENT REVIEW PANEL, appointed by the President Pursuant to the article 105 and article 106 of the Law on Public Procurement in Kosova no. 04/L-042, consisting of: Mr. Hysni Hoxha - President, Mr. Ekrem Salihu referent and Mr. Tefik Sylejmani- member, deciding on the complaint lodged by the EO Insurance Company Sigal Uniqa Grup Austri sha-prishtina, regarding with the procurement activity Benefits for health insurance, with procurement no.tk/15/125/211, initiated by the Contracting authority (CA) Post of Kosova, on the 07 of December 2015 has issued this: DECISION ON THE REFUSAL OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE EO SIGAL UNIQA GRUP AUSTRIA sh.a PRISHTINA, WITH NO.495/15, OF THE 12 OF NOVEMBER 2015, AS UNGROUNDED I. Refused, the complaint of the economic operator Insurance Company Sigal Unika Group Austria sha, regarding the procurement activity Benefits for Health Insurance with procurement no.tk/15/125/211, initiated by the contracting authority - Post of Kosova, as ungrounded. II. Certified the decision of the contracting authority Post of Kosova for contract award, regarding the procurement activity Benefits for Health Insurance with procurement no.tk/15/125/211, as grounded, and allowed Contracting authority to proceed further with procurement activity. III. Non-compliance with this decision obliges the Review Panel that conform with the legal provisions of article 25.8 and article 131 of the LPP no. 04/L-042 to take action against the Contracting Authority, which are defined in the above mentioned articles of the LPP. Contracting authority within 10 days is obliged to inform in writing the review panel for all actions taken with regard to this procurement activity. IV. Complaining economic operator operator Insurance Company Sigal Unika Group Austria sha- Prishtina, conform article of the LPP, it is confiscated the insurance fee of the complaint in the amount of (five hundred euro).

2 REASONING Economic Operator "Insurance Company" Sigal UNIQA Group Austria Group "JSC Prishtina, as the aggrieved party, has filed a complaint with the PRB, on 12 November 2015, with nr.495 / 15, against the notification for contract award for the procurement activity "Health Insurance Benefits" no. procurement TK / 15/125/211, initiated by the contracting authority (CA) claiming -Posta Kosovo in violation of these provisions: Violation of Article 7 of the LPP, Equality of Treatment / Non-Discrimination Violation of Article 51 par. 1, 2 (ii) and 3 of the LPP, Selection Criteria, Violation of Article 54, Notification of the eliminated bidders and candidates, Violation of Article 56 par. 1 point 1.1, 1.2 and paragraph 3 of the LPP, General Provisions on the Selection of Participants and Contract Award, Violation of Article 59 of PPL, Examination, evaluation and comparison of tenders, Violation of Article 64 of the LPP, evidence of the requirements, Violation of Article 65 of the LPP, Eligibility of Candidates or bidders, Violation of Article 41.38, article of the Operational Guidelines for Procurement Procurement Review Body after receiving the complaint, pursuant to article 113 of the LPP. 04/L-042, has authorized the review expert to review the procedure developed regarding this procurement activity,, as well the validity of all complaining claims of the complaining party Insurance company Sigal Unika Grup Austria sha- Prishtina. Review expert in the expertise s report proposed the review panel to be rejected the complaint as ungrounded for the fact that none of the complainant's claim is grounded. EO Insurance Company Sigal Unika Group Austria sha- Prishtina with residence in Prishtina, by memo on the 3 of December 2015, has notified the PRB that does not agree with the findings of the review expert given in the expertise s report. CA, on the 03 of December 2015, with a memo, has notified the PRB that agrees with the report and findings of the review expert given in the expertise s report for this procurement activity. During the hearing session for the main review, of the 7 of December 2015, in which were present members of the review panel, the internal review expert, representative of the complaining EO, the representative of the CA, were reviewed and analyzed once again the complainant's claims. Following the speech was given to the representative of complaining EO Sigal Uniqa Group Austria Mr. Hana who stated: As EO we have appealed in the PRB for the decision of the CA for our elimination, for the reason which was not a requirement of the tender dossier, which

3 later is referred to disconnect their contractual relations for preliminary contract that we had with the CA. By the notification that we have received from PTK sha on the , it is true that the title of this letter is the notice of non-extension and disconnect contractual relations, but also appear contradictions when PTK requires that this contract remains in force until , when it will expire. So we are not dealing with a contract that is settled before maturity or expiration of deadline but contract is fully implemented on the dossier starting from until On the question of the President of RP that wit what contract we are dealing, is it a one year contract or framework agreement, in response Mr. Hana stated: This is a framework contract years. On the question of which are the reasons for termination of this framework contract, in response Mr. Hana stated: According to the complaining claims of PTK sha, are not reimbursements of expenses incurred by the client, which often in large measure, have not been completed under article 8 of the contract. I propose the review panel of the PRB that the complaint to be approved as grounded and the case to return for re-evaluation. Following the speech was given to representatives of the CA -Telecom of Kosova Mr. Krasniqi who stated: We through memo have agreed by the expert s opinion which agreed with the decision of the CA. Complaining claims of EO do not stand for the fact that we as CA have terminated the contract with the EO and the reasons for termination are problems that CA had this EO during the reimbursement- requirements of PTK workers. In another question of the President of the RP, if you have disconnected this contract or have interrupted a period of 12 months, in response to Mrs. Krasniqi stated: In a letter sent on the , writes decisively to terminate the contract with this EO Notice for non-extension and disconnect of the contractual relations, for the fact that the contract has been provided with the possibility of extension for another 2 years. Member of the panel Mr. Salihu asked the representative of the CA, if you have issued a written remark to the concerned EO, during the implementation of the contract before In response to Mrs. Krasniqi stated: One of s sent to EO in question dated , among others it says this will be your final warning for not fulfilling the contract, otherwise will take the necessary measures for failure to meet the terms of the contract. For this there are also other s with which complaining EO is warned as the one dated , where in the end of this writes that for not fulfilling contractual terms will be forced out of our desire to inform the relevant national authorities.

4 On the EO is given the opportunity to reimburse clients requirements before the expiry of the contract, but the same did not reimburse requirements, and then as CA we were forced to detach the contract. In question of the Chairman of the Panel that the EO Sigal, it is confiscated the security of execution, in response to Mrs. Krasniqi stated: CA dated , has made a request to the appropriate authority for - relevant complaint for confiscation of assurance execution of this project. Following the speech was given to the review expert Mrs. Hoti who stated: why I recommended that complaint to be rejected as unfounded and remains in force the decision of the CA, is based on evidence that CA has submitted to the PRB, a number of requirements that are not reimbursed by complaining EO, the request for confiscation of assurance from CA, as well as notification for non-extension and lose of the contract with the CA for complaining EO, based on these tests, I found that CA acted in conformity with article 65 point 3.2 of the LPP, by declaring complaining EO as unfit for the CA in question. Stand entirely by report of In closing statements representative of the complaining EO Mr. Hana stated: CA has not eliminated us that we are inadequate but irresponsible, as they referred to the tender dossier and not the LPP. While the final word representative of the CA Mrs. Krasniqi stated: Complaining EO was eliminated due to the decision taken by the CA, in the previous contract for not performing, according to article of TDS, because under this article this EO did not meet the previous contract with customers, and is found to be ineligible EO conform to article of the LPP. The review panel after reviewing the case files, the evaluation report of the evaluation commission of the CA, reviewing the claiming points of the complainant, findings, analysis and concrete recommendations of the review expert mentioned in the expertise, discussions and screening of the overall evidence during the main hearing session, ascertained and evaluated that CA has made contract award notice regarding this procurement activity conform provisions of the LPP. The review panel ascertains that economic operator Insurance Company Sigal Unika Group Austria failed to fulfill the contract concluded between the CA -Post and Telecom of Kosova and this EO in 2014, have proved by the fact that the economic operator in question has failed to reimburse a considerable number of requests of employees of the contracting authority, who had sought medical treatment and reimbursement of expenditure in accordance with the conditions of contract mentioned above. As evidence in connection with the finding mentioned above the representative of the contracting authority also presented at the hearing the evidence different requirements of workers of the CA that have been made since April 2014, which to date have not been reimbursed by the EO Sigal. As a result of grave professional violation of not refunding the contracting authority on the: , demanded the assurance of execution of the contract performance for EO Sigal and this evidence has presented to the review panel during the hearing session for the main review. The review panel after administration of evidence as: requirements

5 of workers, remarks that were made to complaining EO, notice to disconnect and not extending the contract dated: and the request for execution insurance, finds that EO Sigal Unika Group Austria pleaded ineligible to the CA, in accordance with Article of the LPP. Therefore, review panel based on what was said above, evaluated that the complaint of EO Insurance Company Sigal Unika Group Austria sha- Prishtina is ungrounded, hence decided as in the provision of this decision. Legal advice: Aggrieved party can not appeal against this decision, but it can file charges for damage compensation within 30 days, after the receipt of this decision with the lawsuit In the Basic Court In Prishtina at the Department for Administrative Affairs. President of the Review Panel Mr. Hysni Hoxha Decision to be submitted to: 1. 1x1 Post of Kosova 2. 1x1 Insurance Company Sigal Unika Group Austria sha-prishtina 3. 1x1 Archive of the PRB 4. 1x1 For publication of the web-site of the PRB.