Installation of solar collectors for heating the sanitary water for the facili

P.SH 300/12PROCUREMENT REVIEW PANEL, appointed by the President Pursuant to thearticle 105 and article 106 of the Law on Public Procurement in Kosovo no. 04/L-042consisting of Mr. Hysni Hoxha-President, Mr. Osman Kryeziu - Referent and Mr. TefikSylejmani-Member, deciding on the complaint of the EO “ADETEX-SHPK”- Prishtina,regarding the procurement activity “Installation of solar collectors for heating thesanitary water for the facilities of AKSP”, with Procurement no. 214/12/31/511,initiated by the Contracting Authority(CA)/Kosova Academy for Public Safety (KAPS),on the 06.11.2012 has issued this:DECISIONON THE REFUSAL OF THE COMPLAINT OF OE: “ADETEX-SHPK” PRISHTINANO. 300/12, OF THE DATE: 17.10.2012. AS UNGROUNDEDI. Refused as ungrounded the complaint of the EO “ADETEX-SHPK” Prishtina,regarding the procurement activity with title “Installation of solar collectors forheating the sanitary water for the facilities of AKSP”, with Procurement no.214/12/31/511, initiated by the Contracting Authority(CA)/Kosova Academy forPublic Safety (KAPS).II. Certified the decision of the Contracting Authority/ Kosova Academy forPublic Safety (KAPS), regarding the procurement activity with title “Installation ofsolar collectors for heating the sanitary water for the facilities of AKSP”, withProcurement no. 214/12/31/511, as grounded.Non-compliance with this decision obliges the Review Panel in accordance withthe legal provisions of article 131 of the LPP no. 04/L-042 to take action against theContracting Authority, which does not respect the decision of the Review Panelprovided for in this Law.III. Because the complaining claims of the complaining economic operator“ADETEX-SHPK” Prishtina are ungrounded, conform article 18 of PPL it is confiscatedthe insurance fee of the complaint in the amount of 500.00 € (five hundred euro).

During the session of the main review of the 05.11.2012, at which were present themembers of the Review Panel, review expert, were reviewed the memos of the casewhile doing the checking and reviewing documentation of procurement procedurewhich consists of: authorization of the procurement activity, notification for contract,minutes of the bid’s opening, the decision on the establishment of the evaluationcommission of the bids, bid’s evaluation report, notification on the contract award, thecomplaint of the EO, the report of the review expert, and the answer of the CA on theexpertise’s report.During the presentation in the session, review expert stated: I remain entirely bythe ascertainments that I have done in the report of the 29.10.2012, where I haveascertained that complaining EO is eliminated with reasoning that has offered certificateISO 9001 with expired deadline-invalid. Whereas CA in the article 7.1 of FDT hasrequested quote “All equipment that will be set forth must fulfill Standards ISO 9001.During the continuation of the session review expert stated that, in the tenderdossier wasn’t requested decisively certificate ISO 9001, but the request of CA itself thatall equipment that will be set forth must fulfill Standards ISO 9001 leaves us tounderstand, that all bidders must apply with certificate ISO 9001, to prove that theconcerned equipment fulfill those standards, and in fact two EO, as EO recommendedfor contract and complaining EO have applied with certificate ISO 9001, but thecertificate ISO 9001 of the complaining EO was expired so invalid. Review expert furtheremphasized: that with the fact itself that complaining EO has offered certificate ISO9001, but with expired deadline, lets us know that the same was aware, and hasunderstood clearly the request of the CA, even though in the complaint claims that itwasn’t clear the hearsay request.Review panel, after reviewing the memos of the case, evaluation report of theevaluation commission of the CA, reviewing the complaining points of the complainant,ascertainments, concrete analysis and recommendation of the review expert mentionedin the expertise, memo of the CA, discussion and screening of the evidence entirelyduring the session of the main review, ascertained and evaluated that CA has respectedthe material and procedural provisions of PPL, while recommending for contract awardaccountable EO with the lowest price.Review Panel ascertains that complaint of the complaining EO “ADETEX-SHPK”is ungrounded, for the fact that this economic operator has failed to fulfill the request ofthe CA, foreseen in the article 7.1 of FDT. Review panel ascertains that in the article 7.1of FDT at the requests of professional adaptability, CA has requested: that all equipmentthat will be set forth must fulfill Standards ISO 9001, whereas the review panelascertains evidence that these equipment fulfill Standards ISO 9001 is the certificateregarding these standards, which complaining EO has offered without validity, since tothis certificate has expired the deadline of validity on the 09.10.2012.

Review panel comes to conclusion that all claims of the complaining EO that CAon the occasion of evaluation of the bids didn’t respect the provisions of the PPL, areungrounded, for the fact that CA, examination, evaluation and comparison of the tenderhas done conform article 59 of PPL, while recommending for contract accountable EOwith the lowest price, while respecting in this way the main criterion for contract awardin harmony with article 60 of PPL, and also has treated equally and not discriminatingall EO bidders conform article 7 of PPL.Therefore, Review Panel based on article 117 of PPL and based on that what wasstated above, decided as in the provision of this decision.Legal advice:Aggrieved party can not appeal against this decision,but it can file charges for damage compensationin front of the Supreme Court of Kosovo,within 30 days after the receipt of this decision.Chairman of the Review PanelHysni Hoxha_____________________