25.5 million AMD was allocated for the purchase of judicial bailiffs’ uniforms last summer. On August 11, Judicial Department of the RA signed framework agreement with the “Pahapan” Ltd for the local made apparel.
According to the purchase agreement, 21 million AMD was paid for 430 uniforms (winter jacket, waterproof, 51% cotton and 49% polyester, and a jacket, trousers, a hat and a tie, wing symbol, 60% wool and 40% polyester, scarf, buttons). In other words the value of each collection amounted to 48 thousand AMD. 2.36 million AMD was paid for 50 units of another collection of uniforms (winter coat, agglomerate, 2pcs skirt, forage cap, tie, wing symbol, and buttons). The cost of each was about 47 thousand AMD.
2.19 million AMD was paid for 430 T-shirts for men, also 2.19 million AMD for the same number of long sleeved shirts. 500000 thousand AMD was paid for a total of 100 women T-shorts and long sleeved shirts. In other words, the price of each shirt was 5000 AMD.
Other companies had applied to the tender for purchase of the framework agreement, among them: “Firma Linda” and “Elaamoda” LLC, but the winner was the “Pahapan” Ltd.
Who owns the “Pahapan” Company?
This year the company also sold the robes of a judge to the Judicial Department. In particular, according to the agreement signed on 1 June, 777.600 AMD was paid for the robes of 10 judges of the Cassation Court and 2 judges of the Court of Appeals, which is about 65 thousand AMD for each garment. According to the purchase document, large cut of dresses were made of satin cloaks, from not shrinkable material.
Գրիշա Մելիք-Սարգսյան
In previous years, this company also sold prosecutor’s uniforms, participated and won a number of tenders for the purchase by the Ministry of Defense.
According to the data provided to Iravaban.net by the State Register of Legal Entitles, the founder and the sole shareholder of the “Pahapan” Ltd, which was founded in 2013, is Victoria Melik-Sargsyan, daughter judge of the of Criminal Court Grisha Melik-Sargsyan.
We tried to obtain information about the production of this winner company of Public procurements from the company itself. The address Avan, Quchak 16/2 address was mentioned in a number of purchase documents. We tried to find the workshop in this address; however, it appears that there is no 16/2 building in Quchak district. Local or condominium employee residents claimed about it (Video). Even other buildings and garage in the area did not have such the kind of dating.
We called the phone number indicated in the purchase document, the officer who answered our call promised to find out the address and call back. But receiving no response, we tried to call again. This time, the representative said that their director is not in a city, and asked to call later. We received no reply to our inquiry about the address of the Company. To our observation that there is no building in that address, he answered, “Look for it more attentively. I am noyt authorized to provide info. The phone number will be provided when the director returns, then you can call and talk speak with the director.”
However we failed to speak with the director as we received the same reply to our calls informing the director is not in the city. The employee transferred our last call to the deputy director Zorik Soghomonyan, who was not kind enough and to our inquiry about the location of the company got irritated and he wanted to find out why the journalist has called and asks questions and eventually he took advantage of his right not to answer.
By the way
According to the 2015 report of the Chamber of Control, the Chamber had referred to the judicial system of utilization of budgetary and extra-budgetary funds (CoC report is based on the March 2015 Decision 25/4). The period of control was from 1 January, 2012 to 1 December, 2015.
It was mentioned in the report, that the companies won a 34.9 million AMD contract to supply uniforms to the Judiciary Department, in 2014, and 34.8 million AMD on 1 September, 2015.
“The study showed that a number of supplied costumes did not conform to the technical specifications (contradictory and unsubstantiated) “Judicial bailiffs uniform, insignia and emblems on defining description” of the Government Draft of 17 January, 2008 No. 43-A of the requirements, which is why 17,037.5 3333333333 thousand AMD was spent on bailiffs from the state budget may not be considered effective. It was noted in the explanation, by the Department that goods did not meet the technical specifications were replaced with better quality products,” the report informed.
However, the relevant authorities must examine the basis of this purchase whether there is a conflict of interest and transaction risk. And perhaps, it will also be necessary to find out where the uniforms are sewn, which by the way, are locally produced.
Astghik Karapetyan
