Anticorruption and Integrity

Fraudulent practices

The IOC temporarily suspended a firm from participating in any ADB-financed activities for misrepresentation in two bids that it submitted under ADB projects.

OAI’s preliminary investigation obtained sufficient evidence that the firm had engaged in fraudulent practices by submitting altered CVs of certain key experts in its bid for an ADB-financed contract and misrepresenting that it had not paid fees to an agent in another bid submission.

Sanction violation

The EA established that one of the bidders was included in ADB’s list of sanctioned entities during its bid evaluation. OAI’s investigation confirmed that the bidder was debarred by ADB at the time of bid submission.

The firm accepted OAI’s proposed debarment of 3 years with an option for early reinstatement after completion of a minimum period of 2 years and fulfilment of conditions set by OAI.The debarment extends to the firm’s related entities and branches. As the firm violated its sanction, the debarment was posted on ADB’s public website.

Fraudulent practices

During the evaluation of bids, the EA identified possible misrepresentation by a bidder when it failed to disclose information required in the bidding documents. OAI’s investigation found that the bidder engaged in fraudulent practice, as the omission of the required information misrepresented the status of the bidder and would have misled the EA in its evaluation had the omission not been detected.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of fraudulent practice and debarred the firm and its authorized representative for three (3) years. The firm and its authorized representative will need to implement certain conditions to be eligible for reinstatement after the minimum debarment period.

Fraudulent practices

During the evaluation of bids, the EA identified possible misrepresentation by a bidder when it failed to disclose information required in the bidding documents. OAI’s investigation found that the bidder engaged in fraudulent practice, as the omission of the required information misrepresented the status of the bidder and would have misled the EA in its evaluation had the omission not been detected.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of fraudulent practice and debarred the firm and its authorized representative for three (3) years. The firm and its authorized representative will need to implement certain conditions to be eligible for reinstatement after the minimum debarment period.

Fraudulent practices

OAI received information from a project officer that a firm was administratively sanctioned by a government agency for submitting fraudulent financial reports in its bid for an ADB-financed contract. OAI’s investigation established that the firm falsified supporting documents in its bid and misrepresented that it had the financial capacity to complete the project.

The firm accepted OAI’s proposed debarment of 3 years with conditional reinstatement. The firm may qualify for early reinstatement subject to compliance with the conditions set.  

Fraudulent practices

In a related investigation, a firm reported suspected irregularities by its supplier in providing the firm falsified type test reports, which were included in a bid for an ADB-financed contract. OAI’s investigation confirmed the suspicions and found that the firm, through the actions of its former employee, engaged in fraudulent practice. 

The firm and its former employee accepted OAI’s findings of fraud through misrepresentation and accepted the proposed sanction of 4 years, with an option for early reinstatement after completion of a minimum period of 3 years, provided that the firm demonstrates compliance with the conditions set by OAI.

Fraudulent practices

In a related investigation, a firm reported suspected irregularities by its supplier in providing the firm falsified type test reports, which were included in a bid for an ADB-financed contract. OAI’s investigation confirmed the suspicions and found that the firm, through the actions of its former employee, engaged in fraudulent practice. 

The firm and its former employee accepted OAI’s findings of fraud through misrepresentation and accepted the proposed sanction of 4 years, with an option for early reinstatement after completion of a minimum period of 3 years, provided that the firm demonstrates compliance with the conditions set by OAI.

Fraudulent practices

The Project Team identified red flags of possible fraud in a firm’s bid for an ADB-financed contract. OAI’s investigation confirmed that the firm, through its proprietor, falsified supporting documents in its bid and fraudulently claimed work on contracts that were not completed by the firm. 

The firm and its proprietor accepted OAI’s proposed debarment of 3.5 years. The firm accepted that it will be required to demonstrate it has complied with certain conditions to be eligible for reinstatement after completing the debarment period.

Fraudulent practices

The Project Team identified red flags of possible fraud in a firm’s bid for an ADB-financed contract. OAI’s investigation confirmed that the firm, through its proprietor, falsified supporting documents in its bid and fraudulently claimed work on contracts that were not completed by the firm. 

The firm and its proprietor accepted OAI’s proposed debarment of 3.5 years. The firm accepted that it will be required to demonstrate it has complied with certain conditions to be eligible for reinstatement after completing the debarment period.

Fraudulent practices

During the evaluation of bids, the EA established that one of the bidders was published on ADB’s Sanctions List. OAI’s investigation confirmed that the bidder was debarred by ADB at the time the bid was submitted and that it had submitted seven other bids and was awarded one contract while ineligible. 

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of sanctions violations and debarred the firm for three (3) years, which will run concurrent to the ongoing cross debarment. The debarment extends to the firm’s branches and other related entities. Given that the firm violated its sanction, the debarment was posted on ADB’s public website. The firm must meet conditions imposed under the original sanction to be reinstated.

Fraudulent practices

In investigating the alleged submission of false bid securities by a bidder on two ADB-financed projects, OAI found that when the firm was suspended by ADB for submitting falsified documents and information, the firm’s owner and representative, through two other firms that he owned, submitted bids containing fabricated audit reports and misrepresentation of corporate profiles and work experience with ADB. OAI established that between September 2018 and April 2022 the owner repeatedly submitted fabricated documents and work experience, through the three firms, in attempts to obtain ADB-financed contracts. 

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of obstruction and multiple fraudulent practices; therefore indefinitely debarred the owner and his three firms. The IOC extended the sanction to all entities related to the three firms and the owner, including two identified related firms. In addition, the IOC determined that after the appeals period, the names will be published and eligible for cross debarment.

Fraudulent practices

In investigating the alleged submission of false bid securities by a bidder on two ADB-financed projects, OAI found that when the firm was suspended by ADB for submitting falsified documents and information, the firm’s owner and representative, through two other firms that he owned, submitted bids containing fabricated audit reports and misrepresentation of corporate profiles and work experience with ADB. OAI established that between September 2018 and April 2022 the owner repeatedly submitted fabricated documents and work experience, through the three firms, in attempts to obtain ADB-financed contracts. 

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of obstruction and multiple fraudulent practices; therefore indefinitely debarred the owner and his three firms. The IOC extended the sanction to all entities related to the three firms and the owner, including two identified related firms. In addition, the IOC determined that after the appeals period, the names will be published and eligible for cross debarment.

Fraudulent practices

OAI investigated a firm that won an ADB contract, when it failed the post-qualification process conducted by the EA due to allegations that it lacked the requisite work experience. OAI’s investigation found that the firm submitted fraudulent work experience to meet the bid criteria.  

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of fraud and debarred the firm and the entities associated with or related to it for a minimum period of six years. The IOC considered aggravating circumstances, including the harm caused to the project, significant role of the firm’s employees in the fraud and failure to comply with OAI’s requests for information. The firm may apply for reinstatement after the minimum debarment period and after the firm demonstrates compliance with certain conditions. 

Fraudulent practices

On being alerted that an ADB contractor’s representative and an official of the IA were arrested for bribery, OAI initiated its investigation and determined that on a more probable than not basis, the contractor, through its representative, bribed the IA official to avoid the potential termination of its ADB contract. 

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of corrupt practices and sanctioned the contractor, its representative and entities associated with or related to them for a minimum period of three years. The contractor and representative will need to implement certain conditions to be eligible for reinstatement after the minimum debarment period.

Fraudulent practices

On being alerted that an ADB contractor’s representative and an official of the IA were arrested for bribery, OAI initiated its investigation and determined that on a more probable than not basis, the contractor, through its representative, bribed the IA official to avoid the potential termination of its ADB contract. 

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of corrupt practices and sanctioned the contractor, its representative and entities associated with or related to them for a minimum period of three years. The contractor and representative will need to implement certain conditions to be eligible for reinstatement after the minimum debarment period.

Fraudulent practices

OAI’s investigation substantiated allegations that a firm, through the actions of its authorized representative, engaged in fraudulent practice by submitting false work experience documents in a bid for an ADB-financed contract.

The firm accepted OAI’s findings of fraud through misrepresentation and agreed to OAI’s proposed sanction of the firm, and its subsidiaries and branches, for five (5) years with an option for early reinstatement after completion of a minimum period of four (4) years provided that the firm can demonstrate compliance with the conditions set by OAI. The firm accepted that OAI will publish the debarment as provided for in the Integrity Principles and Guidelines (2015) for second debarments.

Fraudulent practices

OAI’s investigation substantiated allegations that a firm and its legal representative engaged in fraudulent practice by submitting false work experience documents in a bid for an ADB-financed contract.

The firm and its legal representative accepted OAI’s findings of fraud through misrepresentation and agreed to OAI’s proposed sanction of the firm, its subsidiaries and branches, and its legal representative for four (4) years.

Fraudulent practices

OAI’s investigation substantiated allegations that a firm and its legal representative engaged in fraudulent practice by submitting false work experience documents in a bid for an ADB-financed contract.

The firm and its legal representative accepted OAI’s findings of fraud through misrepresentation and agreed to OAI’s proposed sanction of the firm, its subsidiaries and branches, and its legal representative for four (4) years.