1/4

PROCUREMENT REVIEW BODY

According to Articles 109 of Law No. 04/L-042, Law on Public Procurement of the Republic of Kosovo, amended and supplemented with the law No. 04/L-237, law No. 05/L-068 and law No. 05/L-092

A complaint against the: Regional Water Company “PRISHTINA” JSC

For the procurement activity No. of PA: Procurement No: 70433736-20-4823-3-1-2

Internal CA No. KRUP-20-041-3-1-2

Regarding the tender for: Consultancy Services for Prishtina Wastewater Management Project Preliminary Studies, Tender Documents, and Supervision of Works and Technical Assistance

COMPLAINT

1. Complainant’s* identification Consortium Egis Eau; EGIS INTERNATIONAL _________________________________________________________________________________ (Write full name of your company) 889 rue de la Veille Poste, 34000 Montpallier _________________________________________________________________________________ (Address) Montpallier 34000 __________________________________ ________________________________ (Place) (Postal Code) +359 88 7720072 NA _________________________________ ________________________________ (Phone number) (Fax Number) Miloslav Vlahov _________________________________________________________________________ (Full name of the representative of your company) Miloslav.VLAHOV-int@egis.fr __________________________________ (Electronic address) 02.06.2021 ___________________________ _________________________________ (Date of submission of the complaint) (Signature and stamp)

2/4

*Complainant shall mean an interested party filing a complaint. 2. Lawyers identification The complainant may file a complaint by himself or by his Lawyer. If the complaint is filed by his Lawyer, then the authorisation of the representative must be attached with the PROCURE. Write information as follows: _________________________________________________________________________ (Name of lawyer) _________________________________________________________________________ (Full address) ________________________________ __________________________________ (Phone number) (Fax number) ________________________________ (Electronic address) _______________________________ ________________________________ (Date of submission of the complaint) (Signature and stamp) 3. Information on procurement activity [Write a short description regarding the date and place where the “Contract Notice” or “Design Contest Notice” has been published and, if applicable, “Contract Award Notice” “Design Contest Results Notice” or “Cancellation notice of the procurement activity” if applicable, deadline for tender submission, date and time of commencement of Tender Opening process, and contract award criteria.]

Contract Notice: 03.09.2020 në e-prokurimi Contract Award Notice: 26.05.2021 Deadline for Submission of tenders: 26.02.2021 at 13:00 h (CET) Place: Regional Water Company “PRISHTINA”JSC, Headquarters at Str. Hazir Shala, no.4, 3-rd floor, archive-room, No.44, 10000 Prishtina, Republic of Kosovo. Opening of Tenders Opening of Technical proposals: 26.02.2021 at 13:00 h (CET) Place: Procurement Department Offices, Headquarters of RWC “PRISHTINA” JSC, Str. Hazir Shala, No.4, 10000 Prishtina, Republic of Kosovo. Opening of Financial proposals: 13.04.2021 Place: Procurement Department Offices, Headquarters of RWC “PRISHTINA” JSC, Str. Hazir Shala, No.4, 10000 Prishtina, Republic of Kosovo. The contract award criteria: The most economically advantageous responsive tender.

4. Process of Tender Opening, if applicable

3/4

Have you participated in the process of Tender Opening? If yes, specify briefly the process of Tender Opening.

Yes

X

No

No remarks during the opening of tenders.

5. Notification to Eliminated Tenderers, if applicable

Yes

No

6. Preliminary Settlement of Disputes Have you made a request for review to the CA regarding the reasons for your elimination? and a written responded with AK about this? If yes, provide brief details on this fact:

Yes

No

If yes, provide details on this fact and attach a copy of the decision adopted by the CA during the preliminary settlement of disputes in accordance with Article 108A of the PPL.

7. Violated provisions by Contracting Authority

Specify provision or provisions of the PPL that have allegedly been violated by the Contracting Authority from the moment of Contract/Design Contest Notice publication, and if applicable until the conclusion of this procurement activity with the Publication of Contract Award Notice or Design Contest Result Notice or Cancelation Notice.

The Contracting Authority violated the following provisions of the Law no. 04/L-042 042 on Public Procurement of the Republic of Kosovo, amended and supplemented with the law No. 04/L-237, law No. 05/L-068 and law No. 05/L-092: Article 7, paragraph 1, 2 and 6 - Equality of Treatment/Non-Discrimination and Transparency Article 54 - Notification to Eliminated Candidates and Tenderers Article 52 - Notification of Contract Award Criteria Article 56 - General Provisions on the Selection of Participants and the Award of Contracts Article 59, paragraph 2, 3 and 4 - Examination, Evaluation and Comparison of Tenders Article 60 - Contract Award Criteria Article 108A - Preliminary resolution of disputes Rules and of the Operational Guideline, which entered into force on 01.02.2021, violated the following provisions: Article 41

4/4

Article 49 Article 59

** According to the Article 118 of the PPL, PRB shall reimburse your fee if the complaint is approved as grounded. The PRB may require an additional penalty of up to 5,000 Euro in cases where the PRB determines that all or whichever of allegations set forth in such complaint was frivolous, false or misleading. 8. Detailed declaration on the facts and arguments Describe factual circumstances that provide allegation for violation of the PPL provisions. Provide clear and detailed declaration for the facts and arguments that invoke each base of your complaint. On 14.05.2021 through the online e-procurement platform we have been notified with the Form B58 Notice on the Decision of the CA, together with Forms B46 Standard letter for unsuccessful tenderer and B45 Standard letter for successful tenderer, through which we realized that we were not selected as a successful candidate. However, on the 17.05.2021 we received the Tender Evaluation Report of the Evaluation Committee of the CA, through which we were informed about the reasons for our non-selection as a successful candidate, were we also realized that our non-selection was made in contradiction and in serious violation of the provisions of applicable public procurement legislation. Following the request for review submitted on 21.05.2021, by the complainant Consortium Egis Eau; EGIS INTERNATIONAL, the CA issued a decision on the 24.05.2021, rejecting as inadmissible the request for review of the complainant with the reasoning that he has not submitted request for review within time limits (the legal deadline). Therefore, we Consortium Egis Eau; EGIS INTERNATIONAL in accordance with Article 108A, of Law No. 04/L-042, Law on Public Procurement of the Republic of Kosovo, amended and supplemented with the law No. 04/L-237, law No. 05/L-068 and law No. 05/L-092 (hereinafter PPL) within legal time limit (deadline) on 28.05.2021, we submit this:

COMPLAINT for the

Procurement Review Body Divided into two parts:

A. FIRST PART is our complain against the decision of the CA for inadmissibility (rejection) of our request for review;

B. SECOND PART is our complaint against the tender evaluation report and decision of the CA.

for the reason that:

A. FIRST PART: After request for review submitted on 21.05.2021, by the complainant Consortium Egis Eau; EGIS INTERNATIONAL, the CA issued a decision on the 24.05.2021, rejecting as

5/4

inadmissible the request for review of the complainant with the reasoning that he has not submitted request for review within time limits (the legal deadline). Evidence: CA Decision issued on 24.05.2021 Also, CA in the decision writes that the Notice on the Decision of the CA (Form B58) was made on 14.05.2021, while the request for review was submitted on 24.05.2021 at 16:36 (CET). This is true, but CA intentionally in the decision hides the fact that the Tender Evaluation Report of the Evaluation Committee, has been received by the complainant on 17.05.2021, and not earlier. So the complainant was informed with the reasons that he is not a successful candidate only on 17.05.2021. The CA has sent the Tender Evaluation Report of the Evaluation Committee of the CA with three days of delay, for what the time limit (deadline) passed without being able for the complainant to lodge a request for review to the CA, because from the Notice on the Decision of CA, the complainant was unable to understand the reasons why we were not selected as a successful candidate. No doubt and it is obvious that CA had the obligation to send the Tender Evaluation Report of the Evaluation Committee in advance or at least together with B58 - Form (Notice on the Decision of the Contracting Authority) to the complainant. This is due to the fact that only after the evaluation and analysis of the Tender Evaluation Report, the complainant would have been able or was enabled to find the reasons why his bid is unsuccessful and find the legal basis that he considers to lodge a request for review from the CA. So, it is an undeniable fact that CA has acted upon violation of legal provisions and has denied the complainant a constitutional right when he submitted the Tender Evaluation Report to the complainant on 17.05.2021. Based on this factual situation, as the date of the Notification on the Decision of the CA should be taken the date 17.05.2021, and not the date 14.05.2021, because the CA has violated the principles of the LPP, by not sending initially the Tender Evaluation Report. To be as accurate as possible, I will present Article 54, paragraph 1, and paragraph 1.3, Notification of Eliminated Candidates and Tenderers of PPL, stipulates as the following: “1. Whenever a contacting authority eliminates a candidate or tenderer from further participation in a procurement activity, such contracting authority shall immediately notify such candidate or tenderer in writing”. “Such notification must at least contain information specifying such reasons in accordance with the following: 1.3. in the case of an unsuccessful tenderer who submitted a responsive tender, the statement shall specify the characteristics and relative advantages of the winning tender and the name of the winning tenderer”. CA in Form B58 - Notice on the Decision of the Contracting Authority, Form B46 - Standard letter for unsuccessful candidate and Form - B45 Standard letter for successful candidate, did not provide any relevant information or reasons, or did not specify the relevant characteristics and advantages of the winning tender, as required by Article 54 of the PPL. Consequently, the actions of the CA regarding this issue are absurd, meaningless and illegal, because CA had an obligation under law to provide the Tender Evaluation Report prior, or at least together with Form B58 - Notice of Decision of the Contracting Authority, and not to send the same three days later, thus resulting in deprivation and denial to use legal rights for the complainant, i.e. the right to use of legal remedies (request for review), as well as to equal treatment before the law. Also, taking into account the

6/4

behavior of the CA (responsible persons) strengthens our belief that the said actions were made intentionally, in order to prevent the complainant to lodge a request for review, as they were aware of their violations committed during the tender evaluation process (the violations during examination, evaluation and comparison of tenders will be explained below in detail). Therefore, the CA in its decision does not say a word regarding this fact, because this means that the time limit (deadline) of the complainant to submit a request for review has started one day after 17.05.2021, when the complainant has received the Tender Evaluation Report from the CA. Also, it should be noted that despite these violations caused by the CA, the complainant has submitted the request for review within the time-limits (legal deadline) on 21.05.2021 at 16:36 (CET), via e-mail address (with notice of receipt from your server from the same date). So, CA in the decision says that the request for review was submitted on 24.05.2021, so it is not true, but even if it was true, the complainant is still within the time-limit (legal deadline). Evidence: Email from server dated 21.05.2021 The additional reason for the inadmissibility (rejecting) the request for review in the decision of the CA is that the request for review was submitted in an irregular manner because it was not submitted on time through the e-procurement platform. Precisely due to the non-functioning of the e-procurement platform, the complainant submitted the request for review by email after 16:00 (the request for review was submitted at 16:36 CET). The non-functioning of the e-procurement platform was present throughout the procurement activity conducted by the CA, and because of this CA has allowed and performed procedural actions through e-mail address, because it was impossible to use e-procurement from time to time. The complainant the malfunctioning of the e-procurement platform was reported and notified to the CA several times during the procurement activity period. Due to the non-functioning of the e-procurement platform, CA during the procurement activity has always accepted the exchange of documents by email. Therefore, CA claiming that the inadmissibility or rejection of the request for review on these grounds, is another form of unequal treatment and discrimination, resulting in damages for the complainant in this procurement activity. Evidence: Copies of exchanged emails, because e-procurement was non-functional. In addition to the above, the complainant was deprived of his rights due to successive violations of the CA, and this should not have been the legal basis for the inadmissibility of the request for review, because the law instructs that CA should first send to the complainant the Tender Evaluation Report of the Evaluation Committee and then B58 - Form (Notice on the Decision of the Contracting Authority), and not the other way around. Therefore, while we are in this situation we consider that CA, should cancel and annul the B58 - Form (Notice on the Decision of the Contracting Authority) dated 14.05.2021, and issue a new Notice on the Decision of CA, and restore the time limits right of the complainant to legally lodge the request for review and correct the violations made. The complainant considers that PRB should at least instruct the CA to issue again the Notice on the Decision of CA, and from that moment to begin running of the time-limits (legal deadline) for the complainant to submit the request for review. Returning to the time-limits (legal deadline) is the minimum what should happen in order to remedy the violations of this procurement activity, in the sense of equality, legality, and transparency. However, the complainant through this complaint asks from PRB to review and decide on the merits of the complaint,

7/4

also due to the fact that CA did not decide on the merits of the request for review, but only rejected as inadmissible. The CA also violated Article 108A, paragraph 5 and 6, when decided on the request for review without asking for additional clarification. Despite this, the complainant went on 24.05.2021 to the offices of the CA to physically submit additional documentation in support of the request for review, but the CA refused to accept the same, and instructed to submit them via email, which we did, however, they had already issued a decision on the request for review. In addition, Article 43, of the Rules and Operational Guidelines for Public Procurement, stipulates that: “Date of publication of the Notice on the CA Decision, namely the notification of the tenderers/candidates means: The date when all information related to the procurement activity (other than business secret information) is available to stakeholders”. In our case the date when all information was available was 17.05.2021, and not 14.05.2021, which means that request for review was submitted within the time limits pursuant to the PPL. The complainant asked for the Tender Evaluation Report on 23.04.2021 from CA, however, the reply on this request by CA was the following: “As you may have been informed, CA RWC Prishtina JSC published Notice of the Decision, therefore in accordance with your previous request we send you detailed evaluation report. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you any need further information”. Evidence: Copies of exchanged emails. Every person who would examine the emails, would be able to conclude that the e-procurement platform was not functional, the CA authority used double standards for the same procurement activity, and has violated the PPL law when intentionally delayed the provision of the essential and most important information (Tender Evaluation Report) to the complainant. The evidence provided is more than sufficient evidence for the PRB to undertake measures in respect to restore the rights under law for the complainant. The delay by of the CA, to submit the Tender Evaluation Report was detrimental in this case, and we have reason to believe that this was done intentionally as the CA was aware of the shortcomings and wrong evaluation presented in the Tender Evaluation Report.

B. SECOND PART

On 14.05.2021 through the online e-procurement platform we have been notified with the Form B58 Notice on the Decision of the CA, together with Forms B46 Standard letter for unsuccessful tenderer and B45 Standard letter for successful tenderer, through which we realized that we were not selected as a successful candidate. However, on the 17.05.2021 we received the Tender Evaluation Report of the Evaluation Committee of the CA, through which we were informed about the reasons for our non-

8/4

selection as a successful candidate, were we also realized that our non-selection was made in contradiction and in serious violation of the provisions of applicable public procurement legislation. We will present each violation below: 1. in the Tender Dossier, in Part 2, Tender Data Sheet - TDS, point 13.3.h, documents comprising the Technical Proposal under 13.3.h) A detailed description of the proposed methodology and staffing for training, if the TDS specifies training as a specific component of the assignment. Thus, point 13.3.h of the TDS stipulates that training is a specific component of this assignment. Evidence: indisputable (if required can be verified through the tender dossier as attached) 2. Also, Annex 1 - Terms of Reference in point 8, Training and transfer of skills (page 27 of 71, point 8), decisively determines that: “Because design, construction together with efficient and sustainable operation of such infrastructures is unusual in Kosovo, training and transfer of skills is a major component of the project…. ….For these specific training and transfer of skills actions, a provisional lump sum of 170 000 € (One hundred seventy thousands Euros) shall be presented in the consultants’ financial proposals under a clearly identified cost item…..” Evidence: indisputable (if required can be verified through the tender dossier as attached) According to Article 59.4 of the Rules and Operational Guidelines for Public Procurement, the Terms of Reference (ToR) are the key document in the Tender Dossier for Consulting Services. 3. Therefore, the examination of the tender dossier confirms and sanctions without any doubt that the Training and Transfer of Skills is the main component of the project, and strongly requests from each consultant/candidate to submit the amount of 170,000 € in their financial proposals/bids under a clearly identified cost item. Evidence: indisputable (if required can be verified through the tender dossier) 4. In the Tender Evaluation Report in the Table 1., of point 5.1 (financial proposal analysis) the Evaluation Committee found that the candidate Antea/BRL did not comply with this request, i.e. did not clearly identify the amount of € 170,000 in their financial proposal. In the following we present Table 1. of point 5.1 (financial proposal analysis), of the Tender Evaluation Report, where the Evaluation Commission in tabular form has presented the figures (prices) in the financial proposal forms for the three bidders. Table 1, as it follows:

9/4

Following Table 1, the Evaluation Committee concludes in one sentence as it states: “The 170,000 Euros lump sum amount allocated for training and transfer of skills is compliant with requirements of the RFP. It is adequately included in all three proposals”. Evidence: Tender Evaluation Report of the Evaluation Committee of the CA. It is unbelievable how the Evaluation Committee of the CA, despite the specific request/criteria of the tender dossier that stipulates that the amount of 170,000 Euros for Training and Transfer of Skills is clearly identified by the candidate in the financial proposal, comes to such conclusion, when Table 1, makes it clear without any doubt that Antea/BRL candidate failed to submit this amount under a clearly identified item. In fact Antea/BRL has not submitted anything for this category. It is unbelievable how the Evaluation Committee of the CA finds that this amount has been adequately included, when in fact such amount has not been included at all in the financial proposal of Antea/BRL, so item for Training and Transfer of Skills has the value ZERO. Therefore, it goes without saying that when you analyze the Table 1, will be concluded that the total amount of 170,000 Euros does not comply with the requirements of the RFP, and as long as it does not comply with the RFP, it cannot be considered that Antea/BRL has submitted a complete and responsive financial proposal, because it did not explicitly include the amount in question as required. In fact, this amount Antea/BRL did not include at all in the financial proposal, so the candidate Antea/BRL failed to submit a financial proposal according to the requirements set out in the Tender Dossier. Consequently, the failure to present this amount clearly should automatically lead to the announcement of the candidate Antea/BRL a not responsive tenderer/candidate, because it did not meet the criteria required by the tender dossier, if the Evaluation Committee would have applied correctly the material law (PPL) as Article 59. 5. Further, the Evaluation Committee in Table 2, of the same point (point 5.1) presents the interventions that it has allegedly undertaken to correct the arithmetic errors. Table 2, is as follows:

10/4

So, the Evaluation Committee says (quote) that: "following the analysis and arithmetical checking of the proposals, financial details can be presented", and presents Table 2., with the changes undertaken by the Evaluation Committee, where they intervene in the financial proposal of the candidate Antea/BRL, by placing/setting the amount of 170,000 Euros in a new item of the financial proposal, so that it can be clearly identified, with the intention to make the financial proposal meet the requirements of the tender dossier. Evidence: Tender Evaluation Report of the Evaluation Commission of the CA. The Evaluation Committee is in contradiction with itself, because the intervention to improve the financial proposal of the candidate Antea/BRL, in order for it to meet the requirements and criteria of the tender dossier, excludes the conclusion of the Evaluation Committee that this amount has been ‘adequately included’ in the financial proposal. If the amount was adequately included, there wouldn’t be any need for the Evaluation Committee to make any correction or intervention in the financial offer. Article 59.19 of the Rules and Operational Guidelines for Public Procurement, stipulates that: “The financial bid must not be altered in any case”. If this amount for Training and Transfer of Skills has been adequately included then why did the Evaluation Committee have to intervene? In fact, the Evaluation Committee has materially changed the financial proposal of the candidate Antea/BRL, on the grounds that it is making an arithmetic correction, which is not true (incorrect). Arithmetic correction deals with the correction of amounts and not the determination of the new item for, and on behalf of the candidate Antea/BRL. Regarding this intervention we consider that the Evaluation Committee is in violation of Article 41.5 of the Rules and Operational Guidelines for Public Procurement which determines: “A tender is considered to be responsive when it: a. complies, in administrative terms, with the formal requirements of the tender dossier; b. complies, in technical terms, with the description, requirements, and specifications established in the tender dossier”. Whereas Article 41.6 of the Rules and Operational Guidelines for Public Procurement provides that compliance in administrative and technical terms shall be understood as to

11/4

satisfy administrative and technical requirements and specifications set forth in the tender dossier. In this regard Article 41.7 of the Rules and Operational Guidelines for Public Procurement also prohibits changes in price or in any condition or material aspect of the tender. In this case, the Evaluation Committee has violated both of these prohibitions, because it made changes in the price items of the financial proposal and made material changes, because such changes will substantially affects the scope, quality and execution of the contract. In this sense, beyond any doubt the Evaluation Committee has violated the procedures of examination, evaluation and comparison of tenders by conducting or processing and changing the numbers in the financial proposal of the candidate Antea/BRL, where the Evaluation Committee itself places the amount for training and transfer of skills (amount 170.000 Euro) in a clear item, after taking this amount from other amounts foreseen for Phase 1 and Phase 2. Despite our objection, we consider that maybe it is possible to withdraw a part of the amount from Phase 1, but it should be noted that Phase 2 is a "time-based supervision service" which is organized and performed by the engagement of professionals for predetermined days, therefore it is impossible to take or reduce the number of supervision days and reallocate those amounts for training and transfer of skills without having a negative effect in the scope quality and execution of the contract. Moreover, should never happen with a decision of the Evaluation Committee. Our conclusion is that the Evaluation Committee by changing the numbers of the items of the financial proposal which relate to working days for supervision, has executed or made a change to the unit price which would result in contradiction to Article 59, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the PPL and Article 41.10.b, of the Rules and Operational Guidelines for Public Procurement, defining that “in no case may the unit price be corrected”. Whereas, in this case the Evaluation Committee has undertaken such correction and has changed the financial proposal of the candidate Antea/BRL. As well, this intervention in the items of the financial proposal is in contradiction to the general principles of the evaluation procedure, in general to the principles defined in Article 41.3 of the Rules and Operational Guidelines for Public Procurement, and in particular to the principle: “41.3.4. Responsive tenders shall be evaluated against the specified contract award criteria”. “41.3.5. Only the requirements and the contract award criteria specified in the contract notice/tender dossier may be used as a basis for the evaluation”. Article 41.11 of the Rules and Operational Guidelines for Public Procurement states that a candidate shall not be disqualified, excluded or eliminated from the procurement procedure on the basis of any requirement or criteria not specified in the contract notice/tender dossier. Based on this we understand that a candidate should be disqualified and excluded at the moment that he has not complied with the requirements and criteria set out in the Tender Dossier. The financial proposal of the candidate Antea/BRL is not in compliance with the tender dossier and it should have been announced a not responsive tenderer/candidate by the Evaluation Committee, and not a successful candidate as recommended in the Tender Evaluation Report, if the Evaluation Committee would have evaluated and compared the financial proposal of Antea/BRL against the requirements and contract award criteria set out in the tender dossier.

12/4

Furthermore, it should be noted that the Evaluation Committee wants to present the intervention in the financial proposal of the candidate Antea/BRL as analysis and arithmetic correction, which in fact is not the case, because the financial proposal of the candidate Antea/BRL is not in accordance with the requirements of the Tender, as well as Article 59, paragraph 3, of the PPL and Article 41.8 of the Rules and Operational Guidelines for Public Procurement, because according to the legislation in force arithmetic correction means the correction of mathematical errors that are found in the financial proposal, if such errors are detected during examination of financial proposal however this correction is correction cannot be higher than two per cent (2%) of the total value. Arithmetic correction means when there are errors in calculations (arithmetic), such as the calculation of the unit value does not match the total price or vice versa, but with a limitation that this correction cannot be higher or exceed 2% of the total value. The changes or corrections made by the Evaluation Committee are above 2% and Article 41.8.ii., of the Rules and Operational Guidelines for Public Procurement, provides that CA will eliminate the candidate and will inform in writing the candidate by using the standard form B42. In the case of the candidate Antea/BRL there is no arithmetic error, because they failed to clearly identify the Training and Transfer of Skills in the financial proposal as a specific request which is defined as a major component according to the tender dossier. They failed to include and identify as a clear item the amount of 170,000 Euros for Training and Transfer of Skills, not that they made any mistake during the calculation of the amount. Moreover, assuming for a moment that this change is an arithmetic correction, again the Evaluation Committee has exceeded the rule of 2%, of the arithmetic correction which is determined by the legal provisions. The change made by the Evaluation Committee is approximately 5% of the amount of financial proposal of the candidate Antea/BRL for both Phases 1 and 2. Without any doubt, we claim that the Evaluation Committee has not been able to make such corrections without affecting the unit price offered by candidate Antea/BRL, therefore it does not matter that the excess of 5% is factual and affects Phase 1 and 2 of the financial proposal as well as the realization of subsequent work. So both Phases 1 and 2, have decreased by more than 2% in total approximately 5%, while the new item for Training and Transfer Skills received this 5% (170.000€). Again, beyond any doubt, if the Evaluation Committee were to conduct a fair examination, evaluation and comparison of the tenders, then necessarily the candidate Antea/BRL would have to be declared a not responsive tenderer/candidate (irresponsible), consequently would have to be excluded and disqualified from the procurement activity, because it failed to submit the financial proposal in accordance with the tender dossier, or at least the evaluation points from the technical and financial score should be deducted to the candidate Antea/BRL, in order for the procurement activity to be fair and based on law. Therefore, from what was said above, in terms of facts and legal basis we request that CA, issues a:

DECISION

I. to APPROVE the complaint as grounded of the complainant Consortium Egis Eau; EGIS INTERNATIONAL, through which candidate Antea/BRL is declared a not responsive tenderer/candidate in this procurement activity.

9. Material damages

13/4

Describe the manner how alleged violation has caused, or threatens to cause material damage to the complainant, if claims for compensation are included

10. List of attached documents (proofs) If applicable, attach to the Complaint the documents listed below:

a) “Contract Notice” b) “Contract Award Notice” c) letter to unsuccessful tenderer d) notice on the decision of CA e) decision of the contracting authority issued during the preliminary resolution of

disputes in accordance with Article 108A; f) Suspension of procurement activity; g) Tender Dossier; h) Tender Evaluation Report; i) submits an evidence of payment of the complaint fee, described in Article 118 of this

Law. j) all your correspondences with the contracting authority including e-mails and every

written information in relation to this procurement activity, and with every allegation submitted in the complaint.

***According to section 111.2 of PPL, the complainant, shall file the original of the complaint to the PRB and simultaneously, a copy to the Contracting Authority by the most rapid means possible.