(Podgorica, 15 November 2011) – The tender for the rehabilitation of the lead and zinc tailings dump in Mojkovac was anything but transparent. The evidence for such a claim is in the documentation that MANS submitted yesterday to Đurđina Ivanović, the Special State Prosecutor for Organized Crime and Corruption.
The documentation contains the call issued by the Public Works Directorate, clearly illustrating that an electrical installation license was not listed as a requirement for potential bidders. The records also indicate that Bemax was the only one to submit such a license and that the company’s bid initially ranked third in the tender.
The documentation also includes a record of the bid reevaluation following an appeal launched by Bemax and the intervention of the Public Procurement Control Commission (PPCC) that effectively disqualified all the other bidders. The PPCC’s actions effectively enabled Bemax to land a 1.7-million euro contract, which was some 140,000 euros above the best offer made during the tender.
Contrary to what the current President of the PPCC, Marko Lazarević, believes the agency he presides over is also responsible to: “undertake measures in order to ensure the competitive behavior of the bidders and the transparency of the public procurement process” (Article 93 of the Public Procurement Law).
Furthermore, the same act stipulates that the PPCC is also able to rule on infringements of the public procurement procedure, which may significantly affect the awarding of the contract. Lazaravić’s claim that his institution is unable to influence who the eventual winner will be is thus a total manipulation of the facts. Clearly, while the client effectively chooses who will be rewarded, the Bemax case demonstrates the extent of the PPCC’s ability to impact the final decision.
By accepting Bemax’s appeal, Lazaravić had to know that he would thereby automatically disqualify all other bids (dramatically violating the principles of equality and competitiveness that are key to any tender). No other company had obtained the contested license since it had never been among the conditions stipulated in the original call.
If the PPCC believed that this license was truly essential to the project, it was incumbent on the Commission to issue a new tender call that explicitly includes this license as a requirement in any bid. That step would have allowed the Public Works Directorate to ensure that more than one company, in this case Bemax, had submitted a bid (and enabled others to participate in the second round).
Therefore, the PPCC’s decision effectively enabled Bemax to directly intervene in shaping tender criteria, resulting in the eventual acceptance of its bid as the only valid one. Instead of accusing MANS of not understanding public procurement procedures, Lazarević could perhaps explain to the public what motivated him and other members of the Commission to make a decision favoring one participant in the tender.
Of particular interest are the minutes from the Commission for Opening and Evaluating Bids (COEB), which indicate that it had selected Bemax after the reevaluation, while also noting that it believed its initial selection of Tehnoput was justified. The COEB also claimed that the Public Works Directorate: “has grounds for filing a complaint with the Administrative Court to determine the legality of the PPCC’s decision” (something that never took place since Bemax nevertheless landed the contract).
As far as Bemax is concerned, we agree with the assessment of its director and former owner Veselin Kovačević who claims that Bemax is a ‘superior’ company (though we disagree over how the firm became ‘superior’). While we suspect that its ‘superiority’ is rooted in violations of the law and of public procurement procedures – not to mention its more than privileged status in the eyes of Montenegrin state officials – Mr. Kovačević, to date, has failed to offer any argument contradicting our claims other than by insulting MANS.
We can understand why Bemax, given their lack of arguments, might resort to simple insults. However, this isn’t a sufficient reason to relieve their partners within state institutions of direct responsibility for their alleged abuse of office. Unfortunately for Bemax and similar companies, MANS will continue to follow public procurement procedures, particularly those relating to multimillion euro agreements, and publicly shed light on violations of the law and possible cases of corruption.
However, we believe that Bemax has full faith in the competent state authorities in Montenegro. If everything was truly carried out in a lawful and clean way, Bemax would have no reason to be nervous or engage in inappropriate public outbursts (meaning they could simply and calmly wait for the prosecutor’s eventual ruling).
