Rīgas namu pārvaldnieks failed to notice in time that the wrong companies were realizing a contract worth two and a half million euros. RNP made no efforts to make sure the companies that won the tender would tackle the realization of the order, as reported by De Facto programme.
The work procured in the tender are close to completion.
RNP had announced procurement for the replacement of a pipeline in several hundred homes. In this procurement, Infrakom and Akva būve won the right to perform repair work worth EUR 2.5 million. For the contract, the two founded a joint enterprise Infra AB, but three months after signing the contract Akva būve left the joint enterprise. This decision was made because there were no contracts and the company did not want to keep its employees jobless, De Facto reports.
«When we realized how work was being organized and what kind of work was requested, people saw no point in continuing that work. The volume of work at the time was close to nothing,» the programme was told by Infrakom chairman Aivars Zaluzinskis.
The programme notes that Akva was this joint enterprise’s largest member. In 2015, the firm had 55 employees. Infrakom had only 10, according to date from Construction Information System. Akva was replaced by Adapteris, which was previously a partner to Infrakom and RNP. However, the volume of work performed by Adapteris is nowhere near the results of Akva. Adapteris had 15 people employed in construction in 2015, according to De Facto.
The programme reports that nearly the entire amount of the contract was used up within one year’s time – EUR 2.3 million out of EUR 2.5 million. Repair work was performed at 474 locations. Another procurement project has been announced recently.
The change of contractors was not coordinated with RNP. The problem was noticed last year, when the next contract was being discussed with Infra AB. RNP Legal Office director Ilze Orlova-Jansone told De Facto: «We’ve had a contract with Adapteris before. Looking at Adapteris’ experience and financial turnover, we had no doubts about their ability to deliver.»
It is possible that there may have been a violation in the replacement of the largest member. It is unknown whether the joint company could have been able to formally meet requirements of the procurement otherwise. Procurement Monitoring Bureau notes that there would have been a reason for an inspection if it had been reported sooner. Unfortunately, more than six months have passed, which is the limitation period for commencement of administrative action. Deputy Chief of the Procurement Monitoring Bureau Evija Mugina told De Facto: «Deciding factors would be competence and division of work among chosen firms, especially if changes are later made to replace contractors. […] Any changes among those sides mean changes for the contract, which is not something the law allows!»
De Facto notes that this and other facts surfaced after residents came to RNP to complain about unexpected and unjustified repair work.