MR DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CONTRACT
We, Morgan & Morgan law firm in exercise, with established offices in Marbella, Calle 53 Este, Edificio PH MMG Tower, 16th Floor, Phone 265-7777, fax 265-7700, where we get personal notifications, appears in this way to the office to your worthy position, acting in the capacity of Special Agent and on behalf of the consortium CEDEÑO, CEDEÑO Y ASOCIADOS, SA-OMEGA Engineering, Inc. PBS & J CARIBBEAN LLP, contained in General the power that is attached to commence, as indeed interpose, FORMAL COMPLAINT ACTION, contrary to the Report of the Verification Commission (the "Report") par Abbreviated Tender No. 2010-1-38-0-08 -LA-003,850 for the Study, Design and Construction for Intemational Airport Expansion Enrique Malek, David (Ia "Bid") whereby it is recommended to make the award of the tender to the company RIVA PROPERTIES CORPORATION, INDUSTRIAL , COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL AND AGRICULTURAL (hereinafter, "RIVA").
FIRST: The Civil Aviation Authority (the "Authority") announced the tender on the basis of Law 22 of 2006, regulating the process of selecting a contractor by the State;
SECOND: The Authority set a date for the tender on Wednesday, March 24, 2009;
THIRD: The Terms of Reference of the statement of objections of the tender (as the same has been modified, added or amended, hereinafter, the "Statement") indicate that the contractors may fill all the required documents within five (5) working days following the conclusion of the Public Act, if not alter the value proposition offered;
FOURTH: In the period stipulated, both our represented as RIVA met before the Authority on the date and time specified, in order to address the mandatory requirements as it was mentioned in his remarks the Administrative Department of Purchasing and Supplier Authority comments contained in the Act of Opening Envelopes;
On the other hand, that certificate was issued by AA2000, but it does not identify whether AA2000 is a director of airports, the aviation authority Argentina project owner or prime contractor for the work. This being the case, it can not be estimated RIVA has complied with the final paragraph of paragraph 17 of Statement, which - as already seen - notes that the certificates evidencing that point experience required, must be countersigned by the owner project. There is no evidence to suggest that AA2000 is the owner of the project.
TENTH: At another point l7.a breach of Chapter II of the List, it is noteworthy that RIVA presented a Certificate of Work of the Ministry of Progress of the Province of San Luis, Republic of Argentina, where it is certified that the company "has implemented "The work consists of a Regional Airport in the province of San Luis for a total of" $ 12.666l.000. "This certification, as well
not establish whether the real value of it is stated in Argentine pesos or U.S. dollars, a fact not meet the requirement set forth in paragraph 17.b of Chapter II of the List.
Finally, the record reflects that the certification in my dissertation was presented on April 5, 2010, ie since the deadline to remedy that had been granted by the Authority by which such certification should not even be considered, as well your date of entry to the file matches the date on which the Authority has issued the report. In response to the above reasons, we believe that the recommendation of the verification commission
Bid is awarded for RIVA, notwithstanding a breach of this mandatory requirement, is arbitrary action occurred during the contractor selection process. In view of the foregoing, we respectfully request that the Report be amended to reflect the failure of RIVA and therefore recommend that the tender be awarded to our principal;
ELEVENTH: Item 18.4 of Chapter II of the Statement provides that the proponent must submit complete financial statements for the years 2007 and 2008 audited by an auditor firm known internationally. RIVA's financial statements for the periods before ìiiãòrí iseñãdbs audited by Hector Armando Zapatero, Certified Public Accountant and merely coteiados (unaudited) for KPMG
Argentina. Therefore, the recommendation of the verification commission that awarded the tender for RIVA, notwithstanding a breach of this mandatory requirement, is arbitrary action occurred during the contractor selection process. In view of the foregoing, we respectfully ask that the report be amended to reflect the
RIVA failure and, therefore, recommend that the tender be awarded to our principal;
Mr. Director General, with all consideration.
Panama, at the time of submission.
MORGAN & MORGAN
Ramon Varela
We, Morgan & Morgan law firm in exercise, with established offices in Marbella, Calle 53 Este, Edificio PH MMG Tower, 16th Floor, Phone 265-7777, fax 265-7700, where we get personal notifications, appears in this way to the office to your worthy position, acting in the capacity of Special Agent and on behalf of the consortium CEDEÑO, CEDEÑO Y ASOCIADOS, SA-OMEGA Engineering, Inc. PBS & J CARIBBEAN LLP, contained in General the power that is attached to commence, as indeed interpose, FORMAL COMPLAINT ACTION, contrary to the Report of the Verification Commission (the "Report") par Abbreviated Tender No. 2010-1-38-0-08 -LA-003,850 for the Study, Design and Construction for Intemational Airport Expansion Enrique Malek, David (Ia "Bid") whereby it is recommended to make the award of the tender to the company RIVA PROPERTIES CORPORATION, INDUSTRIAL , COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL AND AGRICULTURAL (hereinafter, "RIVA").
From now respectfully request that, after examining the circumstances pointed, to amend the report so that it recommend the award of the tender to our client.
Underpinning this action in the following Claim
BACKGROUND
SECOND: The Authority set a date for the tender on Wednesday, March 24, 2009;
THIRD: The Terms of Reference of the statement of objections of the tender (as the same has been modified, added or amended, hereinafter, the "Statement") indicate that the contractors may fill all the required documents within five (5) working days following the conclusion of the Public Act, if not alter the value proposition offered;
FOURTH: In the period stipulated, both our represented as RIVA met before the Authority on the date and time specified, in order to address the mandatory requirements as it was mentioned in his remarks the Administrative Department of Purchasing and Supplier Authority comments contained in the Act of Opening Envelopes;
FIFTH: In a note addressed to the Authority on March 30, 2010, RIVA filed papers seeking to remedy the breach as provided in sections 15, 18.4 17.by Pliego;
SIX: Through the Report, the Verification Commission of Bid (the "Verification Commission) recommended that the tender is awarded to RIVA
In fact, being that the aforementioned certification records the experience of Mr. Alfaro in a project involving the construction of a temple in any way we can infer that such certification can demonstrate experience as a participant in Mr. Alfaro studies and designs for an airport with a cost of over ten million BALBOAS (B/.10, 000,000.00).
Additionally, the final paragraph of section 17 of the Statement states that the certificates evidencing that point required experience must be countersigned by the project owner. For certification in comment, the project owner is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Diaz y Guardia, a company that merely served as a contractor of the project.
Therefore, RIVA has not submitted at any time of the certification process required by Chapter Il l7.b point of Pliego, why the recommendation of the verification commission that awarded the tender for RIVA, however Failure to meet that with a mandatory requirement, is arbitrary action occurred during the contractor selection process. In view of the foregoing, we respectfully request that the Report be amended to reflect the failure of RIVA and therefore recommend that the tender be awarded to our principal;
SEVENTH: Section 17.b of Chapter II of the Statement deals with the technical expertise of the Company as a mandatory requirement. The same has been reported that the proponent must submit a certificate that has the appropriate design personnel who participated in studies and designs for an airport whose construction cost exceeds ten millions of Dollars (B/.l0, 000,000.00 .) In this sense, RIVA presented a certification issued by the company and Guard Diaz in which certifies that the Engineer Fernando Alfaro served as Project Manager in the project called "PANAMA TEMPLE OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS INCLUDING ACCOMMODATION FOR USERS OF THE TEMPLE, APARTMENTS FOR MISSIONARIES AND A DISTRIBUTION CENTER, "valued at TWENTY MILLION BALBOAS (B/.20, 000,000.00);
EIGHTH: The aforementioned is the only certification by RIVA to give evidence of the suitability of staff to tell if it has been awarded the tender. However, a simple reading shows that this certification is far from meeting the requirements of Section l7.b. Chapter II of the List.
In fact, being that the aforementioned certification records the experience of Mr. Alfaro in a project involving the construction of a temple in any way we can infer that such certification can demonstrate experience as a participant in Mr. Alfaro studies and designs for an airport with a cost of over ten million BALBOAS (B/.10, 000,000.00).
Additionally, the final paragraph of section 17 of the Statement states that the certificates evidencing that point required experience must be countersigned by the project owner. For certification in comment, the project owner is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Diaz y Guardia, a company that merely served as a contractor of the project.
Therefore, RIVA has not submitted at any time of the certification process required by Chapter Il l7.b point of Pliego, why the recommendation of the verification commission that awarded the tender for RIVA, however Failure to meet that with a mandatory requirement, is arbitrary action occurred during the contractor selection process. In view of the foregoing, we respectfully request that the Report be amended to reflect the failure of RIVA and therefore recommend that the tender be awarded to our principal;
NINTH: Item 17.a Chapter II of the Statement requires the submission that the company has made "Studies, Design and Construction of an airport whose cost exceeds ten million dollars (B / 10,000,000.00). In this regard, note that RIVA has submitted a "Certification of Technical Competence," issued by "Aeropuertos Argentina 2000" (hereinafter "AA2000"). This certification is relative to the project named "New Terminal Building Aeroparque Jorge Newberry - Framework Agreement." Assuming for a moment that a "domestic airport (which the Spanish language dictionary of the Spanish Royal Academy defines as" a small airport, especially located in the urban area ") can fit within the definition of an airport at a cost exceeding
B/.10, 000,000.00, it is imperative to note that the work described concerns the construction of a "terminal" and not an "airport." The Spanish language dictionary of the Spanish Royal Academy defines this term as "field fitted with a plain set of tracks, facilities and services for aircraft to regular traffic. "So, although any airport can have a
or more terminals, the construction of a terminal, of itself, not the construction of an airport, especially in a project like the one that provides for the tender, where the construction of the runway represents a major factor in the value of work.
Should also be noted that certification attests that no RIVA has "held Studies, Design and Construction" of the aforementioned domestic airport. Indeed, this certification does not clarify in any way what was the role of RIVA within this project, so can not be considered as meeting the requirement of which is the point 17.a Chapter II of the List.
B/.10, 000,000.00, it is imperative to note that the work described concerns the construction of a "terminal" and not an "airport." The Spanish language dictionary of the Spanish Royal Academy defines this term as "field fitted with a plain set of tracks, facilities and services for aircraft to regular traffic. "So, although any airport can have a
or more terminals, the construction of a terminal, of itself, not the construction of an airport, especially in a project like the one that provides for the tender, where the construction of the runway represents a major factor in the value of work.
Should also be noted that certification attests that no RIVA has "held Studies, Design and Construction" of the aforementioned domestic airport. Indeed, this certification does not clarify in any way what was the role of RIVA within this project, so can not be considered as meeting the requirement of which is the point 17.a Chapter II of the List.
On the other hand, that certificate was issued by AA2000, but it does not identify whether AA2000 is a director of airports, the aviation authority Argentina project owner or prime contractor for the work. This being the case, it can not be estimated RIVA has complied with the final paragraph of paragraph 17 of Statement, which - as already seen - notes that the certificates evidencing that point experience required, must be countersigned by the owner project. There is no evidence to suggest that AA2000 is the owner of the project.
Finally, we should also be noted that the amount of work is set to $ 142,123.156,88 + VAT "This certification, in addition to not establish whether the real value of it is stated in Argentine pesos or U.S. dollars, a fact not meet the requirement in paragraph 17.b of Chapter II of the List. Therefore, no evidence has been presented that RIVA
certifications that meet the requirements of Section 17.a of Chapter II of the List, which is why the recommendation of the verification commission that awarded the tender for RIVA, notwithstanding a breach of this mandatory requirement, is an arbitrary action that occurred during the contractor selection process. In view of the foregoing, we respectfully request that the Report be amended to reflect the failure of RIVA and
therefore recommend that the tender be awarded to our principal;
certifications that meet the requirements of Section 17.a of Chapter II of the List, which is why the recommendation of the verification commission that awarded the tender for RIVA, notwithstanding a breach of this mandatory requirement, is an arbitrary action that occurred during the contractor selection process. In view of the foregoing, we respectfully request that the Report be amended to reflect the failure of RIVA and
therefore recommend that the tender be awarded to our principal;
TENTH: At another point l7.a breach of Chapter II of the List, it is noteworthy that RIVA presented a Certificate of Work of the Ministry of Progress of the Province of San Luis, Republic of Argentina, where it is certified that the company "has implemented "The work consists of a Regional Airport in the province of San Luis for a total of" $ 12.666l.000. "This certification, as well
not establish whether the real value of it is stated in Argentine pesos or U.S. dollars, a fact not meet the requirement set forth in paragraph 17.b of Chapter II of the List.
Finally, the record reflects that the certification in my dissertation was presented on April 5, 2010, ie since the deadline to remedy that had been granted by the Authority by which such certification should not even be considered, as well your date of entry to the file matches the date on which the Authority has issued the report. In response to the above reasons, we believe that the recommendation of the verification commission
Bid is awarded for RIVA, notwithstanding a breach of this mandatory requirement, is arbitrary action occurred during the contractor selection process. In view of the foregoing, we respectfully request that the Report be amended to reflect the failure of RIVA and therefore recommend that the tender be awarded to our principal;
ELEVENTH: Item 18.4 of Chapter II of the Statement provides that the proponent must submit complete financial statements for the years 2007 and 2008 audited by an auditor firm known internationally. RIVA's financial statements for the periods before ìiiãòrí iseñãdbs audited by Hector Armando Zapatero, Certified Public Accountant and merely coteiados (unaudited) for KPMG
Argentina. Therefore, the recommendation of the verification commission that awarded the tender for RIVA, notwithstanding a breach of this mandatory requirement, is arbitrary action occurred during the contractor selection process. In view of the foregoing, we respectfully ask that the report be amended to reflect the
RIVA failure and, therefore, recommend that the tender be awarded to our principal;
TESTING: enclose the following:
1) Power of attorney granted in our favor by the consortium CEDEÑO, CEDEÑO Y ASOCIADOS, SA-OMEGA Engineering, Inc. PBS & J CARIBBEAN LLP;
2) Copies of the following simple, the originals contained in the file:
a. Verification Commission Report dated April S 2010 through which recommended the award of the Tender RIVA;
b. Work Certification dated January 19, 2004 by which the Ministry of Finance and Public Works of the Province of San Luis certify that RIVA has executed the construction of a Regional Airport;
c. Certification issued by KPMG regarding the equity and result of the balance sheet, 2007, 2008 and 2009 RIVA;
d. Certification and Watchkeeping Diaz issued dated March 24, 2010 by which certifies that the Engineer Fernando Alfaro served as Project Manager of the Panama Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints;
e. Certification issued by Aeropuertos Argentina 2000, dated November 3, 2008, regarding RIVA and the planned construction of New Terminal Aeroparque Jorge Newberry.
1) Power of attorney granted in our favor by the consortium CEDEÑO, CEDEÑO Y ASOCIADOS, SA-OMEGA Engineering, Inc. PBS & J CARIBBEAN LLP;
2) Copies of the following simple, the originals contained in the file:
a. Verification Commission Report dated April S 2010 through which recommended the award of the Tender RIVA;
b. Work Certification dated January 19, 2004 by which the Ministry of Finance and Public Works of the Province of San Luis certify that RIVA has executed the construction of a Regional Airport;
c. Certification issued by KPMG regarding the equity and result of the balance sheet, 2007, 2008 and 2009 RIVA;
d. Certification and Watchkeeping Diaz issued dated March 24, 2010 by which certifies that the Engineer Fernando Alfaro served as Project Manager of the Panama Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints;
e. Certification issued by Aeropuertos Argentina 2000, dated November 3, 2008, regarding RIVA and the planned construction of New Terminal Aeroparque Jorge Newberry.
3) Copies simple definitions of the terms "Aeroparque" and "airport" in the dictionary of the Spanish language of the Royal Spanish Academy.
Adduced as evidence, moreover, all the procedural parts lie in the file which contains this process.
LEGAL BASIS: Article II 1 and other related provisions of Law 22 of 2006, Article 193 and other related of the Executive Decree No. 366 of December 28, 2006.
Mr. Director General, with all consideration.
Panama, at the time of submission.
MORGAN & MORGAN
Ramon Varela
