A building paid 8.7 million euros a year ago, bought for the needs of several state institutions, has not been completed or moved into, and the information obtained by the MANS Investigative Centre and “Vijesti” indicates violation of regulations and possible corruption in the purchase of that real estate.
The facility is located in the centre of Podgorica where, among other institutions, the Statistical Office of Montenegro (Monstat) was supposed to be relocated.
According to MANS’ documents, the former Property Administration first significantly changed the public call, which could have resulted in the elimination of competition, and then concluded a purchase agreement by violating tender conditions prescribed by the institution itself.
TENDER AMENDED INSTEAD OF BEING ANNULED
At the end of June last year, the Property Administration, headed by the then director Blažo Šaranović, announced a public call for the purchase of business premises for the needs of accommodating several institutions, including Monstat.
The tender then requested a functional office space of 5,600 square meters from potential bidders, with a separate parking space, while the estimated value of the procurement was nine million euros.
The former Administration also changed the total required area of the real estate, thus, the amended tender requested from 4,300 to 4,600 square meters of office space. The amendments in the tender additionally specified the parking space compared to the original tender, thus, at least 75 parking spaces within the garage with area of 1,300 to 1,400 square meters was requested from the bidders.
Amendments to the tender documentation of this scope required the Property Administration and Šaranović to adopt a Decision on the suspension of the public procurement procedure, as prescribed by the Law on Public Procurement. It defines that if before the deadline for submission of bids, the contracting authority significantly changes the tender documentation i.e. the conditions of the tender, the complete procedure must be suspended.
However, regardless of that legal obligation, Šaranović decided to bring the tender procedure to an end, with drastically changed conditions for participation.
He did not answer calls and text messages from journalists yesterday.
RIGGING OF THE TENDER AND FICTITIOUS COMPETITION?
Two bids were submitted to the Property Administration by the expiration of the tender deadline. One was submitted by the company “Koti nekretnine” from Tuzi, while the other was submitted by the company “The Old Bakery” from Budva.
That the changed tender conditions could have been “set up” for the company “Koti nekretnine” is indicated by the data on the real estate that this company offered in the public call.
It was the business premises in the so-called grey phase of construction, with an area of 4,313 square meters, with 80 parking spaces within the garage of 1,303 square meters, which are exactly the capacities from the previously adjusted tender conditions.
If the Property Administration had not changed the tender documentation during the public call, the bid of the company “Koti nekretnine” would have been rejected as invalid.
Other bidder, the company The Old Bakery from Budva, offered a residential and commercial building located in Zabjelo, although only business premises was requested by the Administration’s tender.
In that way, the offer of this company was rejected as invalid, and thus several participants in the tender worth nine million euros were only formally noted.
THE FACILITY DID NOT HAVE A USE PERMIT AT THE TIME OF THE PURCHASE
One of the conditions from the tender documentation stipulated that the real estate offered for sale must not be burdened with encumbrances and restrictions, which should also have disqualified the offer of the company “Koti nekretnine”.
In the part related to encumbrances and restrictions, the real estate sheet states that “the facility does not have a use permit”.
At the beginning of August, despite everything and the fact that the conditions for terminating the tender were met on several grounds, the Property Administration concluded a contract with the company “Koti nekretnine” in the amount of around 8.7 million euros.
The contract was signed on behalf of that company by its then director, and now the owner, Veljko Lakočević.
At the time of signing the contract, the owner of the company “Koti nekretnine” was the company “Inženjer Gogić”, and its owner in the amount of 9 % was Lakočević. In September 2019, Vladan Ivanović transferred his share in that company to him without compensation.
The first instalment of 2.9 million euros was paid in August last year, the second was paid in March this year, and the third is planned for March 2022.
Meanwhile, the offices, which Duško Marković’s government paid 8.7m euros in the midst of the COVID crisis, are still unoccupied, and it is not known how much more money will be needed to adapt and equip them.
MANS tried to obtain information from the newly formed Cadastre and State Property Administration on how much it cost the state to rent offices for which the building was purchased, as well as a report on the handover of the purchased premises which has clear shortcomings, but the newly formed state institution has not responded to requests for free access to information for nearly half a year. MANS requested this in accordance with the provisions of the Law on Free Access to Information.
The Administration: We are checking tenders, we will report any irregularities to institutions and the public
Cadastre and State Property Administration replied to the “Vijesti” journalist that it was checking all public procurement procedures that were conducted in the previous period, for which there is a basis for payment in the current year.
“If any irregularity is noticed, the public and competent institutions will be informed without delay,” the Administration, headed by Koča Đurišić, stated. They also emphasized that the new Cadastre and State Property Administration is analysing the spending of money based on the lease of business premises for the needs of institutions.
“… Not only in the past year, but also in the past few years, so that a relevant comparison could be made in relation to the previous period, which would determine how much the Administration saved on rent payments in the last year,” the Administration stated.
Authors:
Lazar Grdinić (MANS)
Tina Popović (Vijesti)
