CASERTA – Abnormally low offer. It is with this definition, provided for in article 97 paragraph three of the 2016 Procurement Code, that the tender commission appointed for the works, financed by the PNRR, of recovery of the municipal nursery in viale Cappiello for over one and a half million euros, has excluding the company that had ranked first and would therefore be awarded the construction sites.
It’s about the Gesim srl, a company that the Santa Maria Capua Vetere prosecutor’s office traces back to Raffaele Nunzianteson of the well-known entrepreneur Cyrus (not under investigation), recently investigated in the investigation which last June 13th led to the arrest of the municipal managers under house arrest Franco Biondi, Giovanni Natale, the municipal employee Giuseppe Porfidia and the councilor Massimiliano Marzo, as well as the entrepreneur Gioacchino Rivetti, father of the technical office employee Pasquale Rivetti (not investigated) who, therefore, worked under Biondi himself.
In addition to them, suspects on the loose entrepreneurs Raffaele Nunziante, Giuseppe Piscitelli and Michele Campanile, the head of the Marzo secretariat, Magdi Khachermi, Pasquale Marotta, entrepreneur, the manager Luigi Vitelli, the councilor and deputy mayor Emiliano Casale, Gennaro Rondinone and Gaetano Di Tora, surveyor of the municipality.
For Nunziante, the Santa Maria Capua Vetere public prosecutor’s office had even requested that he be arrested in prison, which was not authorized by the investigating judge Vecchiarelli.
Raffaella Nunziante is accused of electoral corruption and personal corruptionrelating to his relationship with Massimiliano Marzo and some works signed by the managers Luigi Vitelli and Franco Biondi.
Gesim’s exclusion is what emerges from resolution number 637 of 7 June, i.e. the act published a week before Biondi’s arrest and signed by him.
The tender commission, which also included the aforementioned Vitelli as a member, last November 21st placed the economic operator Gesim as first in the ranking which, as mentioned, is part of the Nunziante companies.
At that point, the awarding of the works worth 1 million and 728 thousand euros to the company seemed to be a foregone conclusion.
But the tender commission deemed the Nunziantes’ offer too low, which included a 15% discount on the works as well as the technical fee and a reduction in construction times of 140 days.
Gesim’s answers arrived, but they were not found valid and, in the end, on December 1st, the Nunziante company was excluded and the award was decided to the Antea company of Giugliano in Campania, with legal representative a certain Pasquale Gogliawhich had presented a not irresistible decline in the 2.56% on works and technical fees and a reduction in construction days of 17.80.
Irresistible, but still, it was enough.
One curiosity remains, however. But when did the Carabinieri of the provincial command of Caserta go to the municipality of Caserta to “see” the papers on Gesim, Nunziante and all the rest? Before or after this tender procedure? It’s probably happened before. And so it is not unlikely to imagine that the “expulsion” of the Nunziantes from this race could become a kind of defense hypothesis for the managers. Something like: “have you seen the Viale Cappiello race? We, the Nunziantes, didn’t favor them.”
And speaking of entrepreneurs, we don’t know if Nunziante will want to appeal to the TAR regarding this award. And we don’t know much else why the municipality of Caserta continues not to publish the tender reports, a very serious violation of the laws on transparency, especially at a time when an important portion of the Technical Office of the Municipality of Caserta has been arrested or is under investigation.
Reading the minutes would have helped us find out if the municipality of Caserta had correctly followed the rule that then led to Gesim’s exclusion. Because, otherwise, the Nunziantes would have the right to ask the Campania Regional Administrative Court to receive the award of this million-dollar contract.
And at that point the procedure should retrace that method, which has emerged in other judicial investigations into public administration, in which public managers make procedural errors, sign “kamikaze” actseasily overturned by administrative justice, so that the one who wins that contract is the excluded company, sometimes, in reality, the one of the heart, chosen by the official.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE DECISION
