237/12 Date: 13.09.2012 Reference: 237/12 For: Mr. Driton Pruthi ...
237/12 Date: 13.09.2012 Reference: 237/12 For: Mr. Driton Pruthi ...
237/12 Date: 13.09.2012 Reference: 237/12 For: Mr. Driton Pruthi ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>237</strong>/<strong>12</strong><strong>Date</strong>: 13.09.20<strong>12</strong><strong>Reference</strong>: <strong>237</strong>/<strong>12</strong><strong>For</strong>:<strong>Mr</strong>. <strong>Driton</strong> <strong>Pruthi</strong>- Director of the ZEP-KEC sh.aEO “ELSAM “sh.p.k-FerizajFrom: <strong>Mr</strong>. Hysni Hoxha- President of the PRBSubject: NotificationEconomic operator “ELSAM” sh.p.k with residence in Ferizaj, asdissatisfied party on the 16.08.20<strong>12</strong> has lodged a complaint with protocolno.<strong>237</strong>/<strong>12</strong> in Procurement Review Body, regarding the procurement activity“Supply of spare parts for the suction blower “with procurement no.KEKO/<strong>12</strong>/226/111, initiated from contracting authority-Kosova EnergyCorporation, claiming that CA during the offer’s evaluation process has violatedarticle 61 of the LPP.Procurement Review Body after the receipt of the complaint, based in thearticle 113 and article 114 of the LPP no.04/L-042, has authorized theprocurement review expert to review the process of the procurement activity“Supply of spare parts for the suction blower”, as well the validity of allcomplaining claims of the complaining party EO “ELSAM” sh.p.k from Ferizaj.Review expert on the 04.09.20<strong>12</strong> has submitted the expertise’s report, hasascertained during the examination, evaluation and comparison procedure itwasn’t performed conform article 42 paragraph 3 and article 59 of the LPP,therefore proposes the Review panel to be approved as grounded the complaintof the complaining EO for the first zone and the case to return for re-evaluation.On the <strong>12</strong>.09.20<strong>12</strong>, Contracting authority-KEC sh.a and complaining EO“ELSAM” sh.p.k electronically it was sent the expertise’s report of the reviewexpert, for the procurement activity “Supply of spare parts for the suctionblower “with procurement no. KEKO/<strong>12</strong>/226/111.
Contracting authority- KEC sh.a through memo with protocol no. <strong>237</strong>/<strong>12</strong>of the <strong>12</strong>.09.20<strong>12</strong>, has notified the review panel that agrees with the opiniongiven in the report of the review expert given of the 04.09.20<strong>12</strong>, where isemphasized that CA must re-evaluate the procurement activity conformprovisions of the LPP.Complaining EO “ELSAM” sh.p.k through memo with protocolno.<strong>237</strong>/<strong>12</strong> of the 08.09.20<strong>12</strong>, has notified the review panel that agrees with theopinion of the review expert given in the expertise’s report.Procurement Review Body notifies the contracting authority that conformarticle 115 point 3 of the LPP, the complaint’s procedure ends in this phase.Contracting authority by the KEC, is ordered that during the offer’s re-evaluationprocess must restrain to the selection criterions mentioned in the tender dossier,as well the criterion for contract award “ the accountable tender with the lowestprice”.Procurement Review Body requests from the Contracting authority thatfor the offer’s re-evaluation process to establish a new professional commission,and that within 15 days to notify in written the Review panel for all undertakenactions regarding this procurement activity.Complaining economic operator “ELSAM” sh.p.k , conform article 118point 3 it is returned the insurance fee of the complaint in a value of 500 (fivehundred Euros).
Change language