This is the so-called 403,929 called “Contracting various insurances”. A total of six companies presented themselves, Patria SA also wanted to participate but did not qualify in the PBC for that reason it protested and then sued. In the end, three firms were elected; Aseguradora Yacyretá, El Productor and Rumbos SA de Seguros.
“This happened a few months ago. We are not talking about any optional insurance but mandatory insurance for financial entities regulated by the Central Bank of Paraguay (BCP). When the change in the coverage of the company that previously provided coverage was going to take place and the company that, by virtue of the new tender, would begin to provide coverage, the DNCP receives a precautionary measure issued by the Court of Accounts that says that it must be suspended the bidding process that has already ended”, he lamented.
Seitz explains that this application measure is impossible and creates a terrible insecurity in the system because the DNCP cannot process the issuance of code that is the fundamental key for the use of budgetary resources by the contracting entity.
He pointed out that neither the BNF nor the Yacyretá Insurance company participated in the trial. Similarly, the Court of Auditors proceeded to issue this precautionary measure.
“The BNF, the DNCP and the bidding insurance company filed procedural mechanisms to request the lifting of this measure that we do not consider adequate because it puts at risk the comprehensive coverage that is mandatory for the BNF,” he commented.
FEW JUSTIFICATIONS
Seitz explains that if Patria SA de Seguros y Reaseguros wins the lawsuit, the only thing it will achieve is that the DNCP will only have to analyze the claim, with the possibility of it being rejected.
In other words, Patria SA will not be left with the call in case of winning the lawsuit.
VERSION OF PATRIA SA
Lawyer Andrés Vera, in charge of the Bidding Department of Patria SA de Seguros, reported that the claim they made to the Bidding Terms and Conditions (PBC) was about the “experience” point. Since, the demanded requirement was established in a general way for all the items; however, in the point “documentary requirements for the evaluation of the experience”, the demanded requirement was established in a particular way as a reason for disqualification only for item 1 – Comprehensive Banking Insurance.
“The response of the convener modified the form of evaluation, expanding the restriction. Firstly, according to the public contracting law, any modification made to the bidding terms and conditions must be made by means of an addendum. Second, no modification can contravene the principles of equality and free competition, established in the same law. Even more so, when the modification or requirement does not find technical or economic support that benefits the convener”, she explained.
The lawyer questioned that there is in this call a limitation of the convener to hire a company that has a relationship with a bank.
“Currently, Patria is part of the coinsurance, with a 70% share, which protected the assets of the Banco Nacional de Fomento (BNF), until June 20, 2022. Patria has insured the assets of the BNF since 2013, with no prior history. of breaches or claims in the execution of their contracts”, he argued.
Finally, when asked about the position of his company in relation to this impasse, he pointed out that it is unusual to limit or restrict the participation of a company that has provided a service by insuring its assets to the same convener throughout these last 9 years with impeccable performance.
“There is no technical or legal basis to support the decision of the convener. Patria is a state provider with extensive experience in the insurance field, with technical, economic and legal solvency, which is exercising its right to free participation and competition in contracts called by the State, for which it considers its claim to be fair” , sentenced.
