P.SH 332/10

PROCUREMENT REVIEW PANEL, appointed by the President pursuant to the Article 102, point 1 and 102, point 2 of the Law on Public Procurement in Kosovo (LPP), composed of Mr.Hysni Hoxha – President,, Mr.Tefik Sylejmani-referent and Mr. Ekrem Salihu-member, deciding on the complaint lodged by the EO “Unikat” with residence in Peja, regarding the procurement activity”Supply with uniforms for the personnel of SHKK”,with procurement number 21500/10/010/111, announced by the contracting authority-Ministry of Justice,on 01.09.2010 has issued the following:

D E C I S I O N

ON REFUSAL OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE EO “UNIKAT”PEJA NO. 332/10 DATED 11.08.2010, AS UNGROUNDED

I.Refused, as ungrounded, the complaint of the EO “Unikat” from Peja,regardingthe procurement activity ”Supply with uniforms for the personnel of SHKK”, with procurement number 21500/10/010/111, performed by the contracting authority-Ministry of Justice.

II.AllowedCA (Contracting Authority)-Ministry of Justice, to proceed further with the procurement procedure for the procurement activity “Supply with uniforms for the personnel of SHKK”, according to the provisions of the LPP.

Obliged the contracting authority within a 15 day deadline, must notify the review panel in written form of all actions undertaken with regard to this procurement activity.

III.Pursuant to the Article 118 of LPP in Kosovo, non-compliance with this decision shall oblige the review panel to take all measures against all individuals who fail to comply with the decision of the review panel provided for in this Law.

R E A S O N I N G

The economic operator “Unikat” from Peja, as an aggrieved party on the 11.08.2010 launched a complaint with protocol no.332/10 against the notification for contract award to the EO “Arta Tex” Peja, regarding the procurement activity “Supply with uniforms for the personnel of SHKK“, performed by the contracting authority-Ministry of Justice, claiming that the contracting authority has violated the essential provisions of the LPP no.02/L-99 such as:

  • Violation of the article 52 point 52.1 and 52.2 of the LPP- Notification of the eliminated candidates and eliminated tenders;
  • Violation of the article 39 of the LPP- Notification on contract award;
  • Violation of the article 49, point 49.1, 49.2 and 49.3 of the LPP- Notification on the qualification conditions and criterions of selection;
  • Violation of the article 62 of the LPP- Professional;
  • Violation of the article 64 of the LPP- Technical ability and/or professional;
  • Violation of the article 50 of the LPP-Criterions for contract award.

Procurement Review Body, after the receipt of the complaint, pursuant to the Article 108.1 of the LPP no. 02/L-99, appointed the procurement review expert in order to review this procurement activity and determine the validity of all complaining claims of the complaining party EO “Unikat” from Peja.

The review expert in the expertise’s report of the 27.08.2010, has ascertained that the contracting authority during the process of the offers evaluation has respected the provisions of the LPP and recommends the review panel to refuse the complaint of the complaining economic operator and allow the CA to proceed with further procurement procedure for this procurement activity “Supply with uniforms for the personnel of SHKK.

Contracting authority-Ministry of Justice through a memo of the 30.08.2010 has notified the PRB that agrees with the given opinion in the report of the review expert.

During the main review session in which was present also the review expert, were presented proof while doing the checking and analyzing the material of this procurement activitywhich compounds; authorization of this activity, notification of contract, record on the offer’s opening, decision on establishment of the offersevaluation commission, report of the offers evaluation, notification on contract award, complaints of the EO, as well the answer of the contracting authority on the review expert’s opinion.

Concerning the claim of the complaining party that the contracting authority has violated article 52 point 52.1 and 52.2 of the LPP, review panel ascertains that doesn’t stand, for the reason thatthe complainant it is not eliminated from further participation in the procurement activity, which means that has completed the criterions of selection by the CA in the tender dossier but it has offered a higher price than the economic operator proposed for contract.

Concerning the point of claim where it is mentioned that the contracting authority didn’t respect article 39 of the LPP, Review Panel ascertains that such claim doesn’t stand for the fact that CA has done in time the publishing of the notification for contract award in the website of PPRC, as prove for this is the notification for contract award of the 04.08.2010.

Concerning the claim of the complaining party that the contracting authority has violated articles 62 and 64 of the LPP, Review Panel evaluates that in this concrete case if the complainant would have had uncertainties about requirements on the professional adaptability and requirements on the technical abilities and professional, had the chance that within the deadline for explanation to lodge a request for whatever clarification or uncertainty that faced up with in the tender dossier for this procurement activity.

Concerning the claim of the complaining party where it is mentioned that the contracting authority has violated article 50 of the LPP, Review Panel based on the memos of the case and ascertainments of the review expert evaluates that CA in the notification for contract published in the newspaper and in the website of the PPRC and in the tender dossier page no.70 has set the criterion for contract award the accountable tender with the lowest price while in the page 13 of the tender dossier was done a technicalconcession it was written by mistake that criterion for contract award is the tender economically most favorable, however regarding this hesitation complaining party had the opportunity to lodge a complaint in the moment of taking the tender dossier from the contracting authority, and not doing such a thing after the process of offers evaluation and publishing of the notification for contract award.

Review panel orders the contracting authority that such mistakes shouldn’t repeat in the future, otherwise will be obliged to undertake actions towards the contracting authority according to the article 118 of the LPP.

The review panel after reviewing the memos of the case, evaluation report of the evaluating commission, abovementioned ascertainments in the expertise of the review expert, the answer of the contracting authority regarding the expertise, reviewing the claiming points of the lodged complainant which were evaluated as ungrounded,ascertained that the contracting authority didn’t violate article52, 39, 49, 62, 64 and 50 of the LPP, during the process of the offers evaluation as complaining party claims.

The review panel based on theabovementioned evaluated that the complaints of the EO “Unikat” from Peja, 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

in front of the Supreme Court of Kosovo,

within 30 days after the receipt of this decision. Chairman of the Review Panel

Hysni Hoxha

______

Translated 10.09.2010