Recherche Fr menu fr ClientConnect
Recherche
Résultats
5 premiers résultats de la recherche Voir tous les résultats Recherche avancée
Recherches les plus fréquentes
Pages les plus visitées
    Reference: SG/G/2017/02
    Received Date: 28 February 2017
    Subject: Technical Assistance on WSS & HW project
    Complainant: Confidential
    Allegations: Alleged breach of the EIB's Technical Assistance Contract
    Type: G - EIB's Governance
    Outcome*: No grounds
    Suggestions for improvement: no
    Admissibility*
    Assessment*
    Investigation*
    Dispute Resolution*
    Consultation*
    Closed*
    1/03/2017
    28/03/2017
    27/04/2017
    2/06/2017
    19/06/2017

    * Admissibility date reflects the date the case was officially registered. All other dates pertain to the date in which a stage was completed.

    Case Description

    Complaint

    In February 2017, an individual lodged a complaint with the EIB Complaints Mechanism (EIB-CM). The complaint concerns the alleged mismanagement and neglect of the recipient country for the EIB preparations of the WSS & HW project in Zambia. The complainant alleges that his dismissal by company A in June 2015 was a clear violation of the conditions for award of the tender to company A. He further alleges that the replacement expert recruited had a much lower rate than him as a key expert and that EIB staff were not aware of the events that led to his dismissal, but did not object to his dismissal when he informed them and therefore should be considered jointly responsible for the violation of the regulations.

    EIB-CM Action

    The EIB-CM launched a review of the complaint by reviewing all the correspondence received from the complainant, holding internal consultation meetings with the relevant EIB services, checking the Bank’s database and analysing all the relevant information related to the complaint.

    Conclusions

    The analysis by the EIB-CM led to the following conclusions:

    •  The allegation that company A won the tender amongst other things due to the qualifications of the two key experts is certainly true, but the analysis shows that they were not the primary driver for company A coming ahead in the selection process.
    •  The allegation that the complainant was replaced by a substitute with a much lower rating than the complainant as key expert is not grounded.
    •  The allegation that the EIB was not consulted at a responsible level about the complainant’s dismissal and replacement by another expert is not grounded.
    •  The allegation that the complainant’s dismissal was a clear violation of the conditions for award of the tender is not grounded.
    •  It was not necessary to analyse the allegation that the EIB team took joint responsibility for the violation of the conditions for award of the tender since it did not reverse company A’s decision.

    Since no grounds could be found for the complainant’s allegations, the EIB-CM has decided to close the case.