Fiks Fare / Wonder in Lushnja Prison, the dentist signs the tender documents for the bus repair

But, she did not participate, while from the first firm to the third firm! The second firm was “forgotten” and the third winner was announced. In the documents there were a number of criteria he had to do, even changing the engine of the bus. But the engine was not replaced, only repaired.

The documents show that the firm with the lowest bid was the subject “Sokol Rrokaj”, with a bid value of 563,000 ALL. The second “Luxode Studio” with an offer of 569,000 ALL. The third “Arteo 2018” worth 579,000 ALL and the fourth “NovoAkti” worth 580,000 ALL. The first operator did not participate, while IECD Lushnje had to move to the second offer “Luxode Studio”. This operator has confirmed in the electronic procurement system, but the procurement unit has passed as winner the third offer “Arteo 2018” without arguing why the second ranked economic operator was not qualified. Meanwhile, the third “Arteo 2018” was not presented in time, but was again declared the winner.

“Fiks Fare” has provided a document from the sector of projects and services in the Directorate of Prisons, where the physical verification of the bus was done. “In the item of works with no.11, King Long vehicle engine, provided in the ‘invitation to tender’ and the procurement order does not comply with the physical control of the performed works. And specifically there is no new engine placement, MAN brand, or used for the vehicle, but the existing one. This is evidenced by the engine label of the ‘King Long’ vehicle with film footage. The minutes of the receipt of the recovery parts were verified, from which it resulted that the commission did not receive the new or old replaced engine, but the cylinder block of the existing repaired engine “, it is stated in this document.

Fiks Fare traveled to Lushnja Prison, in the village of Kosova e Madhe. The journalists asked to meet the director Zoi Rrushi, but also the other people who had drafted these documents. But none of them dared to give explanations. Meanwhile, an information specialist told reporters that the information should be provided by the General Directorate of Prisons. “The director of the institution contacted the general directorate. You have to go there, “said the specialist, while the journalists tried to call the procurement manager and the director. But none of them answered the calls.

Journalists address a request for information to the General Directorate of Prisons, which claims that an inspection has been made and problems with the tender and engine replacement have been identified. “This procurement procedure was conducted electronically, by IECD Lushnja. It turned out that the third bid was announced as winner EO “Arteo 2018”, due to non-submission of the first two bids. From the physical verification it was concluded that the engine of the bus was not changed at all, but underwent repair. The procedure has been audited and some measures have been taken. For Zoi Rrushi, the director of the Lushnja Penitentiary Institution was given the disciplinary measure ‘written reprimand’. For Maringlen Myftari, finance specialist of the Lushnja Penitentiary Institution, he was given the disciplinary measure ‘warning with warning’ “, it is said in the answer.

Further, the Directorate says that it has dismissed from duty Mr. Myfit Nezha, head of the Logistics Sector at the Lushnja Penitentiary Institution. While, surprisingly, a “written remark” was taken for the dentist Mr. Kujtim Dosti. “In the evaluation of the audit findings and violations, a criminal report was filed for the officials of the Lushnje Penitentiary Institution and for the economic operator ‘ARTEO 2018 ′” it is stated in the response. When asked how many times after the repair it has suffered a defect, the Directorate of Prisons says that it has suffered 3 times. Journalists also tried to get information from the company “Arteo 2018”. Initially, the administrator claims that they have performed the services for which they were asked. But, the question why the bus was not fitted with a new engine, as it was in the technical specifications, the administrator would ask the specialists. He later claimed that he would contact the editorial office for explanations. But after the second call, he gave no explanation.