Questions about Inkript Contracts and Their Legality: Unreasonable Political Talk

Source: Annahar

Inkript made headlines recently due to disruptions in the operations of the Vehicle and Machinery Registration Authority. These disruptions were caused by a lack of necessary supplies and issues with the automation system managed by Inkript. As a result, concerns were raised regarding the legality of the company's operations and accusations were made about its obstruction of administrative work.

In response to these accusations, Inkript has consistently maintained that it has fulfilled its duties and is awaiting the determination of the quantities required to be supplied, as per the terms of the contract. The company is committed to following up on the implementation of the contract.

The questions surrounding the legality of Inkript's work and its contract gained significant attention following a meeting of the Parliamentary Work Committee and after Representative Sajih Attieh summarized the issue by stating, "We were confronted with a company that has been operating for years without a tender and without a contract on a price schedule. We are unaware of its structure or how it came into existence."

However, the facts contradict Attieh's[NH2]  statement. In 2014, the Authority initiated a tender for a comprehensive project involving the supply of driving licenses, vehicle cards registrations, electronic stickers, secure registration plates, and automation programs. This project was duly approved by the Council of Ministers, signifying its importance and legitimacy.

According to the available documents, it is evident that the tender procedures were meticulously conducted in accordance with a specific set of conditions outlined in a request for proposal. These conditions were designed to ensure fair participation and the provision of supplies and services related to the project. Remarkably, more than four offers were submitted to the tender, including proposals from foreign companies. After careful evaluation, the project was ultimately awarded to Inkript Identification Technologies SAL, as indicated in the minutes of the offer opening on 11/19/2014. Inkript's submission was deemed the most technically superior and financially advantageous.

In the subsequent timeline of events, it is revealed that the Authority, under the guidance of its Board of Directors, officially approved the tender's outcome and the submitted offer of $174,876,900, inclusive of value-added tax, on 11/24/2014.

Regarding the legality of the contract, there are no indications of any irregularities or legal violations in either the tender process or its implementation.

It has come to our attention that the Public Prosecution at the Audit Bureau, in their letter No. 119/2014 dated 12/16/2014, informed the Authority that they had thoroughly reviewed all the tender documents, including the request for proposal. They found that neither the Procurement Committee nor the competent administrative authorities have made violations of the laws, regulations, or provisions outlined in the request for proposal and that would require accountability and prosecution. This conclusion was based on the provisions of the Public Prosecution's decision before the Audit Bureau. Furthermore, the Public Prosecution Office at the Audit Bureau stated that there were no violations in the tender procedures, particularly in relation to the request for proposal, as per the Public Accounting Law. This includes the articles that promote competition, equality, and transparency.

Contrary to the rumors suggesting that the contract does not exist, the State Audit Bureau has confirmed its existence and legality in Opinion No. 17/2023 issued on 8/31/2023. Additionally, the Legislation and Consultation Authority, in Consultation No. 593/2015 issued on 7/28/2015, has also affirmed this matter. The Traffic Management Authority approved the implementation method by issuing annual work orders to execute the contract over a period of seven years. The Legislative Authority has further confirmed that the "concluded" contract is legally valid.

Despite the legality of the documents and the confirmation from relevant and official authorities, none of the officials involved in the discussion have addressed these points. It is important to note that the file and the contract have been thoroughly examined by multiple parties, who have concluded that there are no flaws or irregularities present (Discrimination Public Prosecution - Decision No. 7102/M/2018).