Road littered with complaints: Serious mutual accusations between the Traffic Administration and the company "Geotechnics, Projects & Consulting"

A new landslide in the village of Sokolovina on the Đurđevića Tara-Mojkovac road, alleged negligence in supervising the reconstruction of the Bar-Kamenicki most-Krute section, and several unauthorized changes to project documentation are just some of the problems for which the Traffic Administration and the Podgorica-based company "Geotechnics, Projects & Consulting" (GPC) have been accusing each other in recent months.

This is shown by the extensive documentation on criminal reports, lawsuits and disputes over projects, which "Vijesti" has had access to.

According to the same documentation, the executive director of “GPC” Ivan Ševaljević accuses the director of the Traffic Administration Radomir Vuksanović for illegal changes to the technical documentation for the "Sokolovina" landslide, abuses during the works and endangering traffic safety, while the Traffic Administration counters with claims that there were shortcomings in the design, that all changes were made legally and that the shortcomings in the preparation of the project documentation, in which "GPC" also participated, could have endangered people and property.

Ševaljević In early February, the Higher State Prosecutor's Office filed a criminal complaint against Vuksanović, in which it claims, among other things, that the Administration opened traffic at the critical point "Sokolovina" without a permit and corrected the scope of work, gave their Gusare-Bioče road project to another company for approval without consent, and illegally changed the revised main project for the Cetinje-Čevo road...

He requested that these cases be investigated to determine whether there are elements of a criminal offense that is prosecuted ex officio, while the prosecutor's office told "Vijesti" that the case is in the investigation phase.

"A case has been opened in the Higher State Prosecutor's Office in Podgorica against RV for the criminal offense of abuse of official position, which case is in the investigation phase, during which, at the order of this prosecutor's office, the Police Directorate collected information that was submitted to this prosecutor's office, whose analysis is ongoing, and after which other measures and actions will possibly be taken as needed, all with the aim of making a decision in the case," the Higher State Prosecutor's Office said.

The Traffic Administration, however, emphasizes that they have already responded to the reports with the prosecutor's office, that all projects are being carried out in accordance with the law and with the participation of competent professional services, and that any potential dilemmas will be clarified before the competent institutions.

"Due to the problems observed in the implementation of the project for the rehabilitation of the critical point "Sokolovina", the Administration has initiated a procedure for reviewing and possibly determining responsibility in connection with the preparation and revision of technical documentation. After that, a report was filed by the company "GPC", which participated in the preparation of the project documentation in question. The allegations that the project for the rehabilitation of the critical point "Sokolovina" was changed without the consent of the designer and auditor are not true. During the implementation of the project, certain technical solutions were adjusted in accordance with the expert opinions of the designer, auditor, contractor and supervisor. Changes to the project documentation were made in accordance with applicable procedures and were signed by the designer and auditor," the Administration said.

The Protector collects documents

Problems at the Sokolovina site on the Đurđevića Tara-Mojkovac road have been ongoing for years, and at the beginning of this year a new landslide occurred, halting traffic once again. In mid-2023, the reconstruction and construction of galleries at this critical point was started by the company "Intermost", and the project was worth 10,58 million euros and was completed at the end of last year - a few days before the new landslide.

The administration awarded the job of preparing technical documentation for the rehabilitation of "Sokolovina" to a consortium consisting of "Civil Engineer", "GPC" and "GEONANA", with whom a contract worth 54.859 euros was signed in April 2017.

The Administration then sent a letter to the Protector of Property Relations of Montenegro at the end of January this year, stating that the designed solutions for "Sokolovina" did not correspond to the situation on the ground, and therefore did not enable safe and technically correct execution of the works, which is why they requested changes to the documentation. They claim that the documentation was not well done, that there were omissions in the audit, which made the works more difficult, increased costs and endangered the safety of people and property. Therefore, they asked the Protector to check and determine the possible liability of the designer and the auditor.

They also asked the protector to investigate the responsibility of "GPC" in the work of professional supervision over the reconstruction of the Bar-Kamenicki Most-Krute road, after they terminated the contract for that work with them at the end of February this year - because they did not perform it well.

The Ombudsman's office confirmed to "Vijesti" that they are working on these cases.

"We inform you that we are in the phase of collecting documentation related to the letters in question," said the deputy protector. Jelena Vučetić.

Ševaljević also claims in his criminal complaint that there was a conflict of interest because the supervision of "Sokolovina" was carried out by "Construction Supervision and Laboratory Testing" and "ABG Test" monitored the quality of the installed materials, while the coordinator on the project on behalf of the Administration was Dusko KokicHe claims that before becoming the director of the Administration, Vuksanović held an identical position in “Građevinski nadzor”, while the current director of that company is Kokić, who previously worked on the project for the Administration. He also states that Kokić has a share of ownership in “Građevinski nadzor”.

The Management stated that there was no conflict of interest.

"It is true that the Director of the Administration previously held the position of Director of a company engaged in professional supervision in the field of construction. However, in the process of selecting professional supervision for the "Sokolovina" project, he did not participate in the work of the public procurement commission or in decision-making. Also, Dušan Kokić did not coordinate the project for the execution of works on the "Sokolovina" project, nor did he participate in decision-making on the selection of contractors and professional supervision, nor in the work of commissions in public procurement procedures," the Administration said.

The Administrative Court is also involved

Ševaljević told "Vijesti" that "GPC" was not the designer for "Sokolovina", but that they were doing a geotechnical research study, because they were a subcontractor for geotechnical work in this project. He states that this can be confirmed by the Administration's documents, and that based on that study, "Civil Engineer" designed a 430-meter-long gallery.

"While Vuksanović and the Traffic Administration, with supervision, shortened it to 120 meters and stole who knows how much money. And in the meantime, from the time the criminal charges were filed until today, they added 20 meters of gallery, and again, of course, without valid documentation and a building permit. Only and exclusively their actions could and still can endanger the lives of people and road users, and not our geotechnical research study, which defined that the slope must be protected in an incomparably longer length than the one carried out," he emphasized.

In the complaint, he claims that the original project was revised and a building permit was obtained, but instead of four, only one gallery was built on "Sokolovina" - which led to the collapse. He pointed out that there are elements of criminal liability in this case due to changes in documentation without the consent and signature of the designer and auditor, because in the event of illogicality in the project, the supervision would be immediately notified. He states that the "Construction Supervision" signed the construction book without the revised project, although they must control the works based on that document.

Ševaljević also added that the Administration unilaterally terminated the contract worth 93.710 euros that they signed in mid-2024, for the expert supervision of the reconstruction of the Bar-Kamenicki Bridge-Krute road, but that they did not understand this move because they had done everything according to the law.

At the end of January this year, the management warned them in a letter that their chief supervising engineer was not constantly on the construction site and that they were not doing the work properly, that is, that the supervision was not constant and direct and that the conditions for terminating the contract had been met. The management demanded that they eliminate the deficiencies, otherwise they would terminate the contract and collect the guarantee, which they did at the end of February.

Ševaljević claims that the contractor "Putevi Bar" has been duly paid and that all documents from "GPC" as expert supervision have been accepted.

"If we did not perform our function well and conscientiously and in accordance with the contract, and the Administration knew this, how and why did they pay the contractor for all the situations signed by us? Isn't this a classic form of corruption and harmful actions against the state? Or does another possibility remain, that we performed our professional supervision function in accordance with the contract and all legal regulations, and that the warning about non-fulfillment of obligations and unilateral termination are the result of revenge because the Director of the Administration demanded that we as a company and me as the executive director perform illegal actions, in terms of retroactively signing the audit and many other activities outside the legal framework, which ultimately resulted in a criminal report being filed against Vuksanović," he pointed out.

He claims that they were not paid for their work in the end and that the Administration withdrew the performance guarantee of around 10.000 euros, and Ševaljević believes that this is how the Administration's management and Vuksanović are settling accounts with those who do not follow their orders. He stressed that because of this, they filed a lawsuit with the Administrative Court, seeking the annulment of the decision to terminate the contract.

In a lawsuit filed in mid-March, “GPC” claims that the termination of the contract followed their criminal complaint and that it is a revenge attack by the Administration, and that the decision to terminate the contract does not contain any facts about non-fulfillment of obligations. They stated that even after the Administration’s warning, which they say was not properly signed, there was no evidence that they were not working properly. Therefore, they are asking that the lawsuit be accepted and the termination of the contract annulled.

Ševaljević emphasized that they have won against the Administration in court four times so far, and that they expect the same in this case.

The Petnjica-Bijelo Polje road is also controversial.

The company "GPC" signed a contract with the Administration in February 2020 for the development of a preliminary and main design for the reconstruction of the Gusare (Petnjica)-Bioče (Bijelo Polje) road, but in the meantime, due to changes in regulations, the project had to be brought into line with the Law on Construction of Structures and EUROCOD.

As they claim in the criminal complaint, the Administration did not give them the job, but instead selected the company "Vacon" in the tender and excluded them from the procedure due to a conflict of interest.

They believe that the Management gave their project to the company "Vacon" without permission and consent, after which it was revised.

The Administration stated that in this case, compliance with applicable regulations was carried out, but that "GPC" did not complain during the tender, so they chose "Vacon" and later announced the procedure for carrying out the works.

Problems on the Cetinje-Čevo road?

"GPC" states that the work on the Cetinje-Čevo road was carried out by the company "Mehanizacija i programat" and supervised by "Construction Supervision and Laboratory Testing", while the route was designed by "Put inženjering", and they were in charge of the project's auditor.

In the complaint, they claim that without the consent of the designer and them as auditors, and on the orders of the Administration and supervision, connections were made to this road that were not in the revised design, while slopes were made in the same way.

"GPC" points out that the people in charge of technical acceptance did not want to approve these changes, which is why the Administration asked them to do so.

"Since I refused to do what was requested, I was immediately warned to terminate the active contract with "GPC" for expert supervision of the construction of the Bar-Kamenicki Bridge-Krute road, as a warning and an attempt at an assessment," they claim.

The Administration stated that the Cetinje-Čevo route has been completed and that the Commission for Technical Inspection and Acceptance of Works has carried out the technical acceptance, and that these allegations are not true. They also emphasize that everything was done according to the law.