Agolli of ADF "challenges" SPAK\ Out of 4 firms in the competition, it disqualifies 3 and declares the "Fusha" firm that had the highest bid the winner!

A few weeks ago, Dritan Agolli, the director of the Albanian Development Fund, appeared before the Special Prosecutor's Office to testify on some tender procedures that he has developed. The institution he leads tenders tens of millions of euros per month, where in some cases the procedures are very dubious.

In fact, some time ago he gave his son's chef hundreds of thousands of euros to prepare the menus. The fund is also developing several tenders for the construction of restaurants, one in Tirana and the other in Llixhat e Përmet. It seems that the ADF has become a "go-to" for government clients, who win tenders with the greatest ease.

Such is the tender for which the VoxNews editorial office secured the documents. It seems that Agolli has made an open "challenge" to SPAK, since out of 4 firms in the competition, he has disqualified 3 that offered less and announced the winner of the firm with the highest bid. An excessive courage of this holder, who is already acting "openly" even with documents!

Facsimile: Announcement of the winner of the tender for the construction of sports grounds named "I want to play"

The above document is the announcement of the announcement of the winner of a procurement procedure. The fund announced the winner of the company "Fusha", in the tender with the object "intervention in sports areas and children's toys 'I want to play' phase II", with a contract duration of 24 months. The criteria for selecting the winners was the most economically advantageous offer based on cost.

"Through this form, we inform you that, in this procedure, the economic operators with the relevant values ??as follows have participated. "FIELD" with a value of ALL 530,987,260 without VAT. 'ZDRAVA' & 'ERAL CONSTRUCTION' & 'BESTA' valued at ALL 414,993,101 without VAT, disqualified. BOE 'INERTI' & 'ED KONSTRUKSION' worth ALL 401,031,655 without VAT, disqualified. The offer of 'BE - IS' worth 530,091,298 ALL was disqualified" these documents state. So, out of 4 firms in the competition, 3 were disqualified and the highest bid of the firm "FUSHA" was declared the winner!

Facsimile: The three lowest bidders were disqualified because they "don't have similar work experience"

VoxNews browsed through the documents, where it turns out that the first disqualified firm, BOE "Zdrava", etc., had its bid canceled for the reason that it lacks "successful experience in carrying out similar works".

"Similar work for a single object in a value not less than 50% of the calculated value of the contract being procured, carried out by the economic operator during the last five years from the date of publication of the contract notice or

b) Similar works up to a limit where the total monetary value of the works performed taken together during the last five years from the date of publication of the contract notice is in a value not less than twice the limit value of the contract that procured. Fulfillment of one of the two above-mentioned conditions makes the offer eligible," these documents state.

It seems that the standard tender documents were made only so that the "preferred" firm could be declared the winner. ADF writes that the criterion of similar works was set that the contracts must have been completed within the last five years from the date of publication of the contract notice. The size of the contracts must meet the requirement of the contracting authority, either 50% or 200% of the value of the contract being procured and the contracts must be similar to the facility being procured.

Meanwhile, the second disqualified firm is "INERTI" & "ED KONSTRUKSION", again with the same reason, "successful experience in carrying out similar works".

The third firm that offered less was "BE - IS". Reason for disqualification? Again, there is no successful experience in carrying out similar work! The reasons are similar for all three disqualified firms, casting heavy shadows of doubt that the documents were tailored to only one firm.

© Copyright Vox News

This article is exclusive to Vox News, it is copyrighted according to Law No. 35/2016, "On copyright and related rights". The article can be republished by other media only by citing Vox News and placing the source link at the end, otherwise any violator will be held responsible according to Article 178 of Law No. 35/2016.

1jpg

2jpg

3jpg

4jpg

5jpg