Controversy Over Argentine Bidding Process

DEME criticizes the Argentine government for potential corruption and unfair bidding practices in the Vía Navegable Troncal project, claiming it harms local producers. They urge for review to enhance transparency and competition.


Controversy Over Argentine Bidding Process

The company DEME, one of the largest dredging companies in the world, expressed its surprise and concern over the notable direction of the international bidding document launched by the Argentine Government for the maintenance, modernization, and expansion of the Main Navigable Waterway (Hidrovía Paraguay - Paraná). The company pointed out that the document has irregularities that have been reported to local authorities and that affect free competition, which could result in unnecessary costs for Argentine producers and exporters if the process is not reviewed.

Among the criticisms made by DEME is the fact that the document excludes common and relevant work in these types of projects, such as fill dredging and reclaiming, which limits the scoring of competitors and favors the current operator. Furthermore, the requirement for specific experience in Argentina could restrict the options of international competitors with relevant experience but not in this country.

The company also highlighted that the document favors the current operator by requiring a maximum draft of 8 meters without technical justification, which limits the possibility of using more suitable equipment. Additionally, the way financial backgrounds are evaluated benefits the current company, as it minimizes the scoring of new companies and maximizes that of the incumbent company.

DEME emphasized that the current bidding process for the Main Navigable Waterway would significantly increase the export costs of Argentine products and the import costs of the country. The company considered that the authorities in charge of the process still have time to correct these irregularities for the benefit of transparency and the economy of Argentina.

Finally, the company stated that the deadline granted for submitting offers is insufficient compared to similar bids, and that the technical documentation provided is not adequate for conducting a thorough analysis.