Salerno, auction rigging on Luci d'artista: two interdictory measures

Anomalies and deficiencies in the preparation of the executive design underlying the tender for the Luci d'Artista, Salerno's Christmas event. This is what emerged from the investigations by the financial police of the Provincial Command of Salerno, coordinated by the Salerno Public Prosecutor's Office, culminating today in the execution of a provision against Gabriele Pennimpede, 59 year old official of the Municipality of Salerno, and Arturo Blasi, 44 years old, entrepreneur operating in the lighting installation sector.

Both are under investigation for bid-rigging. Pennimpede was given a 12-month suspension from public office, while Blasi was given a similar provision, for the same duration, of temporary prohibition from contracting with the public administration.

The investigations carried out by the Salerno economic-financial police unit concerned the regularity of the negotiated procedure for the assignment of the "light decoration rental service, assembly, maintenance and disassembly" relating to the Luci d'Artista XVI event, 2021-2022 edition, announced as the contracting authority by the Municipality of Salerno.

The investigations were triggered following a report from Anac that highlighted anomalies and shortcomings in the preparation of the executive design that was the basis of the tender, drawing attention to the violation of the community principles of free competition and equal opportunities, with a consequent poor response from the market.

According to investigators, a pre-arranged collusive agreement by the contracting authority would have emerged, aimed at awarding Blasi the service contract (purchase of the Christmas tree for 210 thousand euros and rental and installation of lights for 740 thousand euros) in violation of the tender procedure, to the detriment of the guarantee of rotation of the contracts and the comparative evaluation of estimates from other economic operators.

The sole person responsible for the procedure, Pennimpede, would have prepared the tender and invited the companies entitled to participate, in the knowledge that these could be traced back to a single centre of interest.

According to the prosecution's hypothesis, the entrepreneur, already aware of the successful outcome of the tender and before the prescribed procedure was concluded, would have signed agreements with material supply companies which would also have agreed to appear, only formally, among the subjects participating in the same tender.