[ad_1]
The Romanian state has been struggling for several months to recover 4 million euros, paid as an advance for the purchase of mechanical ventilators for Covid patients, to companies in South Korea and Switzerland, which to date have not delivered a fan. , although they collected the money. Furthermore, the Romanian authorities were unable to locate any representative of the Swiss company, neither by phone, nor by fax, nor by email. Government sources claim that these companies are in fact a front for other Chinese companies. The money they receive as an advance is European money, not from the state budget.
DSU spokesman Theodor Dan Mihai told Digi24.ro that two civil actions were opened to recover the money from Medi Consulting in South Korea and GSC Consulting and Management AG in Switzerland.
During the state of emergency, when the government was pressured to purchase medical equipment for Covid hospitals, IGSU entered into several contracts for the purchase of mechanical ventilators from various foreign companies.
One of them is Medi Consulting Korea, which should have delivered 400 fans to the Romanian team in mid-June. IGSU paid an advance of $ 2,451,000, money that it is now trying to recover.
However, the Court of Auditors concluded that one of the causes of the “peak” is the negotiation of a totally disadvantageous contract for the Romanian authorities:
“IGSU was forced not to celebrate with another economic operator, during the framework agreement, another framework agreement whose purpose was to purchase products covered by the framework agreement to meet the same need that led to the organization of the negotiation procedure without publication , respectively for the prescribed amount of a maximum of 400 medical ventilators “
“An example of the acceptance of unrealistic clauses is the Framework Agreement No. 2595 / 10.04.2020, with the purpose of purchasing fans, entered into between ONAC and Medi Consulting of South Korea and the subsequent Contract No. 116229 / 04.27.2020 concluded between the Department of Emergency Situations, through IGSU and MEDI Consulting Korea, a contract that was not fulfilled, the products were not delivered and penalties for delay were not calculated and billed, in accordance with the contractual clauses, as after acceptance by IGSU of the “force majeure” clause invoked by the supplier The performance guarantee was not executed and, therefore, the advance payment of USD 2,451,000 granted to the supplier for the contracted products was not recovered. .)
Framework agreement no. 2595 / CN / 10.04.2020 ordered the purchase of 400 pieces of fans delivered in four batches, between April 17 and May 8, 2020, granting an advance of up to 30% of the value of each batch, but without requesting Guarantee instrument issued According to the law of a banking or insurance company, the difference of 70% of the value of each subsequent contract can be guaranteed by the existence of said instrument. Article 25 of the subsequent contract defined the conditions of force majeure / fortuitous event, that is, the action of force majeure for more than 15 days empowers each party to notify the other party of the total termination of the subsequent contract, without any of the parties to be able to claim damages to the other. IGSU paid the amount of 10,931 thousand lei on 04/28/2020, which represents an advance to Medi Consulting of South Korea, related to an amount of 200 fans with a delivery period according to the contracts concluded on 05/13/2020 (100 units.) And the date of 05.28.2020 (100 pcs.). From the analysis of the subsequent contract no. 116229 / 04.27.2020, held between the Department of Emergency Situations, through IGSU and MEDI Consulting South Korea, the following was found: – until 06.30.2020 no delivery was made; – no penalties for delay were calculated according to the contract, accepting the contracting authority on the last day of validity of the subsequent contract, respectively on 06.15.2020, the case of force majeure invoked by MEDI Consulting based on the certificate presented on that date; (…)
The following was found: – no delivery was made until 06.30.2020; – no penalties for delay were calculated according to the contract, accepting the contracting authority on the last day of validity of the subsequent contract, respectively on 06.15.2020, the case of force majeure invoked by MEDI Consulting based on the certificate presented on that date; – with the acceptance of the force majeure invoked by the supplier, IGSU, through the report note no. 116883 of 06.15.2020, approved the total termination of the subsequent contract, in accordance with art. 25.5 of the contract (find the supplier in a situation of force majeure for a period exceeding 15 days). Among the main reasons invoked by IGSU, for which the termination of the Subsequent Contract was proposed and approved, is the fact that, from the date of execution of the Subsequent Contract until the moment of the control mission, there was a decrease in the price unitary medical ventilators; – until 06.30.2020, the performance guarantee of 0.5% of the value of the subsequent contract was not executed, respectively the amount of USD 40,800 for breach of the contractual clauses, valid until 06.29.2020; – An advance of 30% of the value of the subsequent contract was granted, for an amount of 11,000 thousand lei (equivalent to 2,451,000 USD), an amount not recovered until the date of completion of the control of the Court of Accounts ”, write the inspectors of the Court of Accounts.
From the Swiss, IGSU had bought 250 fans, for which it paid an advance of 1,935 million euros, out of a total amount of 6,450,000 euros. The result?
„With respect to Framework Agreement no. 2217 / 31.03.2020 concluded between the Central National Procurement Office and GSC Consulting and Management AG Switzerland, aiming at the supply of 250 AEONMED VG70 Medical Fans, the Court of Accounts, based on the note sent by IGSU, concluded that GSC Consulting and Management AG did not provide a performance guarantee of 32,250 euros, did not deliver any of the 150 VG70 medical ventilators that are the subject of the subsequent contract, nor did it return the advance granted by IGSU in the amount of 1,935,000 euros, although it has been notified accordingly. The contracting authority resorted to the coercive exercise of the judiciary to recover the advance paid and the damage suffered by the supplier not having responded to the requests in any way (email, telephone, fax) “
