Price agreements in flood protection: Investigations in Lower Austria
In Lower Austria, a process of making a price setting in the field of flood protection causes a stir. On a Thursday, an employee of the country and the managing director of a Viennese company were on trial for accusations of the illegal price agreements. Both are held on to responsible for distortion of competition when awarding two geotechnical building prospects. The geologist that is about it feels wrongly accused and pleads for not guilty.
The allegations were raised by the Economic and Corruption Prosecutor's Office (WKStA), which is directed against behavioral behavior in tenders. The issues concern two flood projects in the Krems and Melk region. If the accused are found guilty, they face prison terms of up to three years. In addition, the Viennese company could be confronted with a lawsuit.
Details about the price agreements
The origin of the investigation was an advertisement by an employee of an engineering office from Lower Austria, which was awarded the contract for the projects. However, this became more complicated when the witness was excused on the day of the trial, which will probably delay the procedure. One key point of the indictment is that two bidders agreed to have their prizes to ensure that the Lower Austrian engineering office received geotechnical building supervision. The procedure against the engineering office has already been discontinued.
The Viennese geologist, who suffers from the allegations, emphasizes that his support for the creation of a list of services was only an auxiliary service. According to him, the documents of the Lower Austrian submitted were inadequate, which motivated him to support his colleagues. "That was scrap," said his comment on the inaccurate work documents. He made it clear that he hadn't worked with another company or planned anything illegal.
Another aspect that complicates the events is the geologist's explanation that he had not expected that the Lower Austrian company would have applied for the geotechnical construction management, as they do not normally compete in such tenders. The public procurement entitlement, he argues, would not have made the tender necessary in the classic sense, rather it was a direct award.
The country's official also said that he had not seen any anomalies in the award. He justified the decision to commission the Lower Austrian engineering office with the consideration that they had made the best offer after improvement. However, this had caused some confusion because the attribution was also made to one and the same company. In the past, this has not yet happened, but the circumstances had legitimized such a decision, the official argued.
The processes that were built around these allegations throw a light on the complexity of the award procedures in the administrative apparatus and the possible inconsistencies that are connected with it. It remains to be seen how the case will develop, in particular with a view to the further negotiations and the role of the individuals concerned. More information on this topic are in one article www.noen.at to be found.