You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Dog food producer fights back tender results

24.06.2020

Subject of complaint: Separate Commandant`s Office of Guard and Procurement of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine (Commandant`s Office of SBGS)

Complaint in brief: The Council received a complaint from the pet food producer. The company complained about the cancellation of results of tenders in which it participated. It is interesting that tenders were carried out through the public procurement Prozorro system.

The company took part in the tenders for procurement of the food for service dogs for 18 military units of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine (SBGS). The customer was the division of the SBGS – the Commandant`s Office. The offers of the complainant, who agreed to supply 18 military units with required products for total price UAH 4,7 mn, was the most beneficial. However, the customer suddenly cancelled the results of all procurements. The official reason for cancellation was the receipt by the Commandant`s Office of the telegram from the governing authority the Administration of the SBGS.  The customer did not disclose the content of this telegram to the participants of the procurements. The complainant started to suspect that the real reason was that tenders were won by a “wrong” company. The pet food producer decided to approach the Council for help.

Actions taken: The investigator immediately started the consideration of the case. In the letter to the customer and the Administration of the SBGS the Council asked to conduct an internal investigation of the circumstances connected with the cancellation of the tenders. Apart from that, the Council recommended to ensure the transparent and impartial procurement procedure in line with the law.

Results achieved: In the course of the investigation, the Administration of the SBGS ascertained that the organization of the tenders took place with certain violations and brought the implicated officials to liability. Meanwhile, the customer announced a new tender on procuring the pet food. The complainant decided to participate in it. The Council closely observed the process. But this time all went with no surprise. The complainant repeatedly gained victory in the tender and became a supplier of the food for the service dogs of the SBGS. The case was successfully closed.