EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DG Regional Policy

EN

Lesson learnt from tender procedures financed by the Structural Funds Brussels, 13 November 2008

Claude Tournier Directorate-General Regional Policy Directorate J - Audit

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG Regional Policy

EN

Outline presentation
A. Main findings of DG REGIO audits in relation to Public Procurement Directives B. Financial corrections for non compliance in the field of public procurement C. Conclusions / Tips how to do it better

Brussels, 13 November 2008

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG Regional Policy

EN

A. Main findings of DG REGIO audits in relation to PPD

a) b) c) d) e) f) g) General / preparation of tenders Publication Evaluation committees / tender opening Selection phase / Eligibility Evaluation of tenders / award Cancellation / appeals Implementation of contracts / Modifications
3

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG Regional Policy

EN

A. Main findings of DG REGIO audits in relation to PPD

General / Preparation of tenders a) Directives on public procurement not adequately implemented by the Member State (allowing certain types of establishment to avoid being classified as contracting authorities; confusion between selection and award criteria) Restrictive selection criteria in procurement notices and tender dossiers Unclear drafting and content of tender dossiers
4

b) c)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG Regional Policy

EN

A. Main findings of DG REGIO audits in relation to PPD

Publication

a)

Tenders published at regional / national level instead of EU level (discrimination on the ground of nationality)
Contracts divided up in order to avoid the need to comply with the Directives

b)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG Regional Policy

EN

A. Main findings of DG REGIO audits in relation to PPD

Evaluation committees / tender opening a) b) c) d) Hierarchical links within members of evaluation committees High ranked officials involved in the evaluation process Insufficient qualification / experience of members of evaluation committees Preparatory meeting after the opening session
6

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG Regional Policy

EN

A. Main findings of DG REGIO audits in relation to PPD

Selection phase / eligibility

a)
b) c) d)

Exclusion of tenders is not duly justified

Abnormally low bids are excluded without tenderers being asked for an explanation Automatic acceptance of explanations provided by abnormally low bidder Requests for clarifications are not transparent
7

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG Regional Policy

EN

A. Main findings of DG REGIO audits in relation to PPD

Evaluation of tenders / Award - 1

Selection and award criteria are mixed

Distinguish between three types of criteria: exclusion, selection and award Selection: in accordance with the criteria of economic and financial standing, of professional and technical knowledge or ability (is the tenderer capable of performing the contract?) Award: in case of award to the most economically advantageous tender, to appreciate the quality of the offer (in relation to subject matter of the contract).
8

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG Regional Policy

EN

A. Main findings of DG REGIO audits in relation to PPD

Evaluation of tenders / Award - 2 Selection and award criteria are mixed, e.g. award criteria include: the previous experience, works carried out for contracting authority, n of permanent staff vs temporary staff
9

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG Regional Policy

EN

A. Main findings of DG REGIO audits in relation to PPD

Evaluation of tenders / Award - 3
a)
b)

Contracts awarded by direct agreement (without any competition at all)

Other unlawful discriminatory criteria are applied, e.g. the requirement to have an office or representative in the country/region Average values from bids are used, unfairly penalising low bids Joint evaluation of tenders is carried out Service contracts: the weight of the final interview in the evaluation process is not proportionate

c) d) e)

10

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG Regional Policy

EN

A. Main findings of DG REGIO audits in relation to PPD

Cancellation / Appeals

a)
b)

Tender negotiation stage: substantial reduction of scope of works

Appeals from unsuccessful bidders not properly dealt with

11

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG Regional Policy

EN

A. Main findings of DG REGIO audits in relation to PPD

Implementation of contracts / Modifications
a) Additional works or services directly awarded to the economic operator in place, when
amount exceeds 50% of the amount of original contract, the circumstances invoked are not unforeseen even if circumstances are unforeseen, when works/services are economically or technically separable

b)

Automatic extension of supervision contracts because of delays in the execution of works contracts
12

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG Regional Policy

EN

A. Main findings of DG REGIO audits in relation to PPD

Implementation of contracts / Modifications
a) Additional works not included in the project initially considered or in the original contract
I. II. Tender documents should be the result of careful planning and include all necessary elements for a genuine competition Unforeseen events should be interpreted in an objective manner as referred to what the authorities should have foreseen and not to what they actually did

III. Consider the means available to the contracting authority, the characteristics of the project and the good practices in the field IV. Unforeseen circumstances should not be imputable to the contracting authority
13

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG Regional Policy

EN

A. Community law applicable to contracts not covered by PPD

Recent ECJ case-law

Assessment of cross-border interest

No presumption, not even complaints received If no cross-border interest can be proved national legislation But always, in case of direct award of contracts without any form of competition, the principle of sound financial management

14

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG Regional Policy

EN

B. Financial corrections for non compliance in the field of public procurement

Relevant legislation (2007-2013): Reg. 1083/2006 - Art. 98: by the MS - Art. 99: by the Commission Serious deficiency in the M&C Irregular expenditure in a certified expenditure declaration MS has not complied with its obligations under art. 98

- Art. 100: Contradictory Procedure

15

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG Regional Policy

EN

B. Financial corrections for non compliance in the field of public procurement

Relevant legislation (1994-1999) Art. 24 of Council Regulation N 4253/88 Relevant legislation (2000-2006) Art. 39(2) and (3) of Council Regulation N 1260/99 Art. 4-7 of Commission Regulation 448/2001
16

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG Regional Policy

EN

B. Financial corrections for non compliance in the field of public procurement

1.
2.

Ref. to Public Procurement Directives or the general principles of the Treaty

Art. 1(2) of Reg. 2988/95: definition of irregularity + Reg. 2035/2005 amending 1681/1994, and now further definitions in complement in Art. 27 of Reg. 1828/2006 Commission guidelines on the application of financial corrections

3.

17

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG Regional Policy

EN

B. Commission guidelines on the application of financial corrections Principles

a) MS responsible in the first instance for investigating irregularities and applying financial corrections b) Individual or systemic irregularities c) Cancellation of all or part of the public contribution to OP/priority axis/operation d) Commission instance intervenes in the second

e) Commission determines type of financial correction: specific / flat rate / extrapolated

18

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG Regional Policy

EN

B. Commission guidelines on the application of financial corrections

Rate of corrections can range from 2% to 100% of the amount of the contract (or of the addendum) in case of contracts covered by PPD from 5% to 25% of the amount of the contract (or of the addendum) in case of contracts not covered by PPD

19

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG Regional Policy

EN

Commission guidelines on the application of financial corrections Examples I

Subject to PPD

a) Contract directly awarded (no competition at all) 100% b) Contract awarded without prior publication in the OJEU (publication at national/regional level) 25% c) Addenda for additional works (services) without unforeseen circumstances 100% of the addenda d) Addenda for complementary works (services) with unforeseen circumstances and > 50% of initial contract 100% of the amount 20 exceeding 50%

10

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG Regional Policy

EN

Commission guidelines on the application of financial corrections Examples II

Subject to PPD

e) Addenda for additional works (services) with unforeseen circumstances and > 50% of initial contract 100% of the amount of additional works f) Procurement notice or tender dossier do not mention all the selection and award criteria which are used 25% of contract

g) Contract awarded without respecting the announced criteria 5%, 10% or 25% of contract based on seriousness h) Procurement notice or tender dossier do not contain a sufficiently detailed description of 21 the subject matter 25% of contract

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG Regional Policy

EN

Commission guidelines on the application of financial corrections Examples III

Subject to PPD

i) Negotiations during the award procedure 25% of contract j) Procurement notice or tender dossier with illegal selection and/or award criteria (dissuasive effect) 25% of contract /100% when intention to exclude certain firms k) Reduction of the physical object of the contract without price decrease 100% of reduction (+ 25% if the reduction refers to one of the essential elements of the contract) l) Auxiliary elements of the PPD not respected (e.g. publication of the award notice) 2%, 5% or 10% of contract 22

11

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG Regional Policy

EN

Commission guidelines on the application of financial corrections Examples IV

Not Subject to PPD Below the thresholds ; Service contracts of Annex II B Dir. 2004/18/EC and Annex XVII B of Dir. 2004/17/EC

a) Non respect of sufficient degree of advertising 25% of contract b) Addenda for additional works (services, supplies) without unforeseen circumstances 25% of the addenda c) Procurement procedure with illegal selection and/or award criteria (dissuasive effect) 10% of contract

d) Violation of the equality of treatment principle between tenderers 10% of contract 23

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG Regional Policy

EN

C. Conclusions / Tips to do it better

-

Focus should be put on preventive actions reliable procurement system Reliable procurement system:

Independent and capable procuring entities fully responsible for implementing procurement, but Existence of public procurement institutions or agencies (autonomous bodies) in charge of protection of rights Internal audit bodies External audit bodies Other stakeholders (commercial associations, NGOs, media) Otherwise Audits (ex post): contract already signed if impact on Community budget Financial corrections
24

12

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG Regional Policy

EN

C. Conclusions / Tips to do it better

Risk analysis needed when the control applies to samples : Services contracts, then supply ones, more risky than works ones (evaluation, monitoring of actual expenditures) Smaller beneficiaries more at risk (municipal level) : weaker administrative capacity and experience and local considerations for choosing the companies Concessions and long term services contracts : financial challenges and direct negotiations Monitor the addenda : can change the balance of the initial competition
25

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DG Regional Policy

EN

Thank you for your attention!

13