MUP KS fully adhered to the law: The bid of 275,000 KM was unrealistic

(Patria) - Regarding the article titled "IS THIS REAL From an e-auction and a price of 275,000 KM, Katica pays almost a million KM for demolition of the structure to Mevludin Commerc!?" published on the Patria portal on November 9, 2024, concerning the Contract for construction works on the demolition and removal of the building in Kolodvorska Street, the Public Procurement Commission of the Ministry of Interior of Sarajevo Canton, on behalf of the contracting authority, provides the following clarification and statement, and demands that the said text be published in its original form:

The Public Procurement Commission responded to the allegations of the Patria portal: The bid of 275,000 KM was unrealistic, the winner of the e-auction appealed and requested to be awarded the job for 900,000 KM

The Ministry of Interior of Sarajevo Canton initiated in March 2024 a procedure for selecting a contractor for the demolition and removal of the existing building in Kolodvorska Street, with the estimated value of the demolition amounting to 769,230 KM. This value was based on a professional engineering assessment of the demolition, provided by the Institute for Construction of Sarajevo Canton.

For the subject job, three bidders (company Bosman, company Harysco, and company Mevludin Komerc) submitted their bids on time, and all three were assessed as acceptable by the Procurement Commission, after which an e-auction was conducted.

During the conduct of the subject auction, companies Bosman and Harysco competed to such an extent that the most favorable bid ultimately amounted to 275,000.00 KM, submitted by company Bosman.

In connection with this, the Head of the Authority issued a Decision on the award of the contract to company Bosman as the most favorable bidder.

Instead of proceeding to sign the contract, companies Bosman and Harysco filed an appeal against the said decision. Thus, the company that participated in the e-auction and was selected as the most favorable bidder (BOSMAN) appealed against the job it had won as the most favorable, and which it itself had created.

To understand the motivation and behavior of these companies, it is sufficient to examine the subject appeals, in which these appellants consider the bids of other bidders unacceptable, and thus each company requests to be awarded the job at the starting price (approx. 900,000.00 KM), as the sole bidder with an acceptable bid.

The contracting authority therefore remains unclear, to this day, why the subject companies approached the e-auction in this manner, going to such lengths in lowering the price for the subject service, when from the series of steps taken it is actually evident that they were not at all interested in the subject job that would be performed at the prices they themselves created through the e-auction (275,000 KM).

Company Mevludin Komerc did not file an appeal against this subject Decision.

The Procurement Commission, in the further course of the procedure, accepted the appeals of companies Bosman and Harysco, and the Head of the Authority issued a decision to annul the procedure, against which company Mevludin Komerc now files an appeal.

The Procurement Commission in this case maintained its position that the bid of bidder Mevludin Komerc was also unacceptable, prepared a Statement on the appeal in that regard, and the Appeals Office decided on the further course of the procedure. Thus, the contracting authority – the Ministry of Interior of Sarajevo Canton, maintained the position that the entire procedure should be annulled.

Contrary to this, the Appeals Office did not share the opinion and position held by the contracting authority, but instead accepted the appeal of company Mevludin Komerc, annulled the Decision of the contracting authority, and returned the matter to the contracting authority with instructions for further action.

Thus, ultimately, for the contracting authority, and following the instructions of the Appeals Office, the only acceptable bid remained that of company Mevludin Komerc, so the contracting authority issued a Decision on the award of the contract in that regard.

Company Bosman did not appeal this Decision of the contracting authority, but company Harysco did, which lost the process because the Office for Consideration of Appeals rejected the subject appeal and confirmed the Decision of the contracting authority.

Therefore, the Head of the Authority, i.e., the Ministry of Interior of Sarajevo Canton, in this subject procedure fully adhered to the law, the recommendations of the second-instance administrative body, i.e., the Office for Consideration of Appeals, and in no case did it voluntarily issue the subject Decisions.

The Commission therefore considers this media article to be very harmful to the Ministry of Interior, as it creates a false impression in the public that the Head of the Authority acts arbitrarily, which does not correspond to the facts and truth in this subject procedure.

The Commission is also of the view that this erroneous interpretation presented by the author of the article "IS THIS REAL From an e-auction and a price of 275,000 KM, Katica pays almost a million KM for demolition of the structure to Mevludin Commerc!?" could have easily been avoided if information about the course of the procedure had been immediately requested from the contracting authority, where the Procurement Commission would have presented facts that are very easily provable," the Commission stated.