Timor-Leste

Road Climate Resilience Project


         Redacted Report




                       March 2020
                                Statement of Use and Limitations

This Report was prepared by the World Bank Group (the “WBG”) Integrity Vice Presidency
(“INT”). It provides the findings of an INT administrative inquiry (the “Investigation”) into
allegations of corrupt, fraudulent, collusive, and/or coercive practices, as defined by the WBG for
purposes of its own policies, rules and procedures (the “WBG’s Framework regarding Anti-
corruption”), in relation to the WBG-supported activities. The purpose of the Investigation was to
allow the WBG to determine if the WBG’s Framework regarding Anti-corruption has been
violated.

This Report is being shared to ensure that its recipients are aware of the results of the INT
Investigation. However, in view of the specific and limited purpose of the Investigation underlying
this Report, this Report should not be used as the sole basis for initiating any administrative,
criminal, or civil proceedings. Moreover, this Report should not be cited or otherwise referred to
in the course of any investigation, in any investigation reports, or in any administrative, civil, or
criminal proceedings.

This Report is provided without prejudice to the privileges and immunities conferred on the
institutions comprising the WBG and their officers and employees by their respective constituent
documents and any other applicable sources of law. The WBG reserves the right to invoke its
privileges and immunities, including at any time during the course of an investigation or a
subsequent judicial, administrative or other proceeding pursued in connection with this matter.
The WBG’s privileges and immunities cannot be waived without the prior express written
authorization of the WBG.




                                                 1
Background

In July 2011, the International Development Association (“IDA”) and the Democratic Republic of
Timor-Leste (“Timor-Leste”) signed a grant agreement for the Road Climate Resilience Project
(the “Project”). In November 2013, Timor-Leste signed both a loan agreement with the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (“IBRD,” collectively with IDA, the
“Bank”) and a credit agreement with IDA, providing additional Project financing. In April 2017,
IDA and Timor-Leste signed a financing agreement for additional Project financing. The Project
became effective in August 2011. The Project aims to deliver sustainable, climate-resilient road
infrastructure on the Dili-Ainaro corridor.

The Project implementation unit undertook the procurement process for a contract to provide
services under the Project (the “Contract”). Company A, in a joint venture with a controlled
subsidiary, Company B, and Company C (collectively, the “JV”), was among the firms shortlisted
for Contract award.

Company A, as the lead JV member, submitted the JV’s proposal for the Contract (the “Proposal”).
The JV was selected for Contract award. The Client and the JV, represented by Company A’s
President Director, signed the Contract, valued at approximately US$ 4 million.

Allegations & Methodology

The Bank received a complaint alleging that the JV had misrepresented the availability of a
specialist (the “Specialist”) in its National Key Expert Staff team, using his/her curriculum vitae
(“CV”) and transcript certificate in its Proposal without his/her knowledge or consent.

INT reviewed relevant documents and interviewed witnesses.

Findings

   1. Evidence indicates that Company C forged the Specialist’s signature on his CV and
      submitted it as part of the JV’s Proposal without his/her knowledge.

The JV submitted its Proposal for the Contract. It listed the Specialist as a member of the JV’s
National Key Expert Staff team, including his/her CV with signature and transcript certificate.

Evidence indicates that the signature on the Specialist’s CV as submitted in the JV’s Proposal was
forged. Further, evidence indicates that the Specialist did not know or have contact with any of
the companies in JV prior to learning that they had submitted his/her CV and transcript certificate
in their Proposal. Evidence indicates that the Specialist did not tell the JV that he/she would work
on the Contract and that he/she never worked with JV on the Contract.

In its response to INT’s investigation, Company C stated that it had signed for the Specialist, then
submitted his/her CV with the forged signature and transcript certificate in the JV’s proposal.
Company C stated that it had advised Company B that it could not obtain the Specialist’s signature.



                                                 3
   2. Evidence indicates that the JV misrepresented the Specialist’s availability to work on
      the JV’s National Key Expert Staff team at Contract signing.

Evidence indicates that approximately a week prior to Contract signing, the Specialist notified
Company A that the JV had used his/her CV and transcript certificate in its Proposal without
his/her knowledge, with his/her signature forged. Evidence indicates that Company A and
Company B’s senior management, were made aware of the Specialist’s complaint and the need to
replace him/her in the Proposal.

Nonetheless, a Company A’s senior manager signed the Contract on behalf of the JV, with the
Specialist still listed in the Contract as a member of the JV’s National Key Expert Staff team.

In its response to INT’s inquiries, Company A and Company B acknowledged that the Specialist
should not have been included in the Contract at signing. Similarly, Company C stated that they
should have replaced the Specialist during Contract negotiations.

Corrective Actions

The World Bank imposed administrative sanctions against Company A, Company B, and
Company C.




                                              4