Lithuanian Lawmaker Questions Minister on "Fegda" Supplier Blacklisting

A Lithuanian lawmaker is demanding answers regarding a construction company's potential blacklisting after serious violations were found in a public contract. Member of Seimas (parliament) Mindaugas Lingė has formally addressed the Minister of National Defence, Robertas Kaunas, and the Infrastructure Management Agency (IVA) following a critical finding by the Public Procurement Office (VPT).

“

VPT concluded that the Infrastructure Management Agency did not properly supervise the 5.3 million euro contract with "Fegda" for the Rūdninkai training ground road: supervision did not meet the standard of diligent and responsible public procurement contract administration and did not ensure the protection of public interest, and the Agency fully settled with the contractor, even though the work turned out to be of poor quality.

The VPT's investigation into a 5.3 million euro contract with "Fegda" for road construction at the Rūdninkai training ground revealed that the IVA failed to adequately supervise the project. The agency's oversight did not meet the standard of diligent and responsible public procurement contract administration, nor did it ensure the protection of public interest. Despite the substandard work, the IVA fully settled the contract with the contractor.

Lingė highlighted that the VPT suggested IVA proceed with considering "Fegda" for inclusion on the list of unreliable suppliers. "Therefore, the ball is now in the agency's court," Lingė stated. He noted that "Fegda" agreed to redo the road work due to the public outcry, suggesting this was a move to avoid being blacklisted. "This is not about one company, but about whether state institutions can apply their own rules," he added.

“

Because of the resonance, "Fegda" agreed to redo the road. This is good, but it is likely how risk is managed, avoiding being placed on the list of unreliable suppliers.

Lingė has posed several questions to the minister and the agency. He seeks to know what actions will be taken in response to the violations, whether "Fegda" will be blacklisted, and why the company was allowed to rectify defects without a thorough investigation into their nature and causes. He also questioned the timing of expert assessments and whether the contractor would be held responsible for the costs associated with them.

“

Therefore, the ball is now in the agency's court.