The Ministry of Public Function (SFP) disqualified for one year and nine months to receive public contracts, and sanctioned with a fine of 887 thousand pesos Cyber Robotics Solutions SA de CV, owned by León Manuel Bartlett Álvarez, son of the director of the CFE, Manuel Bartlett, for presenting false information about the fulfillment of his employer obligations before the IMSS.
This, during a tender carried out by the Institute in October 2019, for the supply of medical equipment to the Hospital de Especialidades del Centro Médico Nacional La Raza.
According to the Directory of Sanctioned Suppliers and Contractors, Cyber Robotic Solutions SA de CV provided false information in the execution of contract number B195003, which was derived from public tender number la-o5ogyr055-e225-2019.
“Since, for the subscription of this, it presented, among other documentation, the opinion of the fulfillment of obligations in the matter of social security, with folio number 1572271025655359449008, that did not contain truthful information”, as it was verified with the information sent by the IMSS.
The SFP had already issued two previous disqualifications against León Bartlett Álvarez’s company for the breach of a contract of 31 million pesos to provide 20 ventilators to the IMSS Delegation in Hidalgo, bought urgently by direct award due to the COVID pandemic- 19.
According to the SFP, the disqualifications against the Bartlett company were for 24 and 27 months, respectively, as well as two fines, totaling more than two million pesos, to the same company.
However, Cyber Robotic Solutions obtained a provisional suspension after challenging the SFP’s sanctions before the Federal Court of Administrative Justice (TFJA).
IMSS turned down fans of Bartlett’s son. Last May the Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS) rejected 20 fans sold by León Manuel Bartlett, son of Manuel Bartlett, director of the CFE, through the company Cyber Robotics Solutions.
Through a statement, the IMSS indicated that derived from the technical review of the equipment, “it was determined that they do not meet the requirements and technical-functional characteristics agreed in the contract.”
The Institute reported that on May 8, the administrative record was drawn up for the return of the equipment, which was delivered to the supplier.