Public Sector Procurement Services

Public Sector Procurement Services

Call: +353 (0)1 525 2645   Mail: info@publicprocurement.ie

  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Meet the Team
  • Blog
  • Contact Us

Brexit and Public Procurement

7th January 2021 By Public Sector Procurement Services

Brexit and Public Procurement: First Impressions from an Irish Supplier Perspective

While the media was obsessively distracted by the last-minute Punch & Judy fish negotiations, little or no attention was paid to public procurement arrangements post-Brexit. This is a far bigger sector of economic activity than fish, estimated to account for approx. £290 billion in the UK and some €2 trillion in the EU. The following is a brief summary of what is known at this point.

The new arrangements post the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement will be largely determined by the EU’s and UK’s commitments under the WTO’s Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) and this is formally set out at Title VI to the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement at pages 148-153.

However, there is much more detail as to the UK Government’s intentions in its Green Paper Transforming Public Procurement which outlines its broad policy approach for higher value or “over-threshold” contracts and its new guidance notes (PPN 11/20) on lower -value or “sub-threshold” public contracts. These documents were quietly published the UK’s Cabinet Office website on 15th December with zero fanfare and to complete media indifference.

The following is a brief attempt at some preliminary analysis with particular reference to the Irish perspective.

1. Public contracts above WTO/GPA value thresholds (i) works/construction contracts (>£4.7 million); and (ii) goods/services contracts above £123,000 (central government bodies) or £189,000 (sub-central government bodies).

The green paper, which is open for comments until 10 March 2021, sets out how the British Government intends to operate public procurement in accordance with its WTO (Government Procurement Agreement) and bilateral commitments from 1 January 2021. The focus of the green paper is on public contracts that exceed WTO/GPA value thresholds set out above.

While the green paper indicates some proposed significant procedural divergence from the current EU public procurement regime, it would appear that, fundamentally, public contracts covered by the UK’s WTO/GPA commitments will continue to be procured on the basis of advertised competition open to commercial entities in WTO/GPA countries and other countries with which the UK has bilateral arrangements on public procurement. This approach will be welcomed by Irish suppliers to the UK/Northern Ireland public sector market. The Ministerial Foreword accompanying the green paper sensibly acknowledges that public procurement is a two-way street and that proceeding in this manner “guarantees access for UK suppliers to £1.3 trillion in public procurement opportunities in more than 48 countries”. The Foreword also goes on to reassure the market in stating that: “We will respect our commitments to not discriminate against parties in this and other bilateral international trade agreements on public procurement.”
The green paper indicates that there will be changes to simplify and streamline the remedies available to aggrieved tenderers wishing to challenge contract award decisions but acknowledges the key WTO principle that such remedies must be “effective”. It remains to be seen, therefore, how the new remedies regime will operate in practice and how “effective” it will be.
For the moment, therefore, it would seem that the basic market-access rules will remain substantially unchanged for over-threshold public procurement in the UK/NI market. Pending some proposed changes flagged in the green paper, Contracts Finder will be retained to ensure that suppliers can search for contract opportunities online. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will continue to have their own dedicated public sector procurement websites. However, UK/NI public contract notices will no longer be published on the EU portal, Tenders Electronic Daily .
Of course, much will depend on the detail of the UK legislative changes in due course as well as the detail of how the trade and cooperation agreement with the EU is implemented in practice. There remains much uncertainty with regard to matters such as equivalence of standards and professional qualifications, data protection, rules of origin, VAT, temporary cross-border access for consultants in performing contracts and so on.
Irish suppliers with an interest in the UK/NI public sector market should continue to monitor the OGP Guidance on Brexit which will continue to be updated in the light of further developments in the coming weeks/months.

2. “Sub-Threshold” Public Procurement – i.e. works/construction contracts valued at less than £4.7 million and goods/services contracts valued at under £123,000 (central government bodies) or £189,000 (sub-central bodies).

This is the orphan child of public procurement, often overlooked and seen as of little consequence by government and EU policy makers over the years. However, for many Irish, Northern Irish and UK SMEs, this market is key to their development and growth and sometimes their very survival. While the individual contract values may be relatively low, it must be borne in mind that cumulatively the value of this business represents possibly as much as 20% of the UK government’s annual spend of £290 billion on public procurement.

This sub-threshold sector is a vital first step on the business ladder for many small enterprises and start-ups as it enables them to establish their credentials in the successful performance of public contracts. This is a critical requirement in helping them to move up to the bigger value contracts in the “over-threshold” arena. There are many enterprises throughout Ireland , NI and the UK who have travelled this path to greater success benefitting from the open access to such contracts across our jurisdictions that has prevailed up to now.

To date the EU Commission has had little to say on this market sector other than in its “Questions and Answers” issued on 24 Dec on the EU-UK TCA which includes the following:

“The Agreement further provides for non-discrimination of EU companies established in the UK (and vice versa) for small-value procurement, i.e. below the threshold of the GPA (from EUR 139,000 to EUR 438,000, depending on the contracting entity, and EUR 5,350,000 for construction services).

The foregoing seems to imply that contracting authorities in the UK/NI and the EU may “reserve” or limit sub-threshold contracts to entities “established” within their jurisdictions and thereby exclude all other would-be cross-border operators from tendering for such contracts.
The prohibitive cost of cross-border “establishment” could effectively exclude many SMEs from competing across borders for sub-threshold contracts and this is hardly a good outcome for SMEs on either side, but especially so on the island of Ireland.
The UK Government’s plans for this sector were signalled in the Ministerial Foreword to the Green Paper as follows:
“We have already introduced a policy which will allow below threshold contracts to be reserved for UK suppliers which will come into effect at the end of the Transition Period.”
On the face of it, this is bad news for the many SMEs across Ireland who might want to compete for business in the Northern Ireland or wider UK public sector market because it raises the stark possibility that they may be excluded from this market from 1 January this year.
The detail is set out in the UK Cabinet Office Policy Note PPN 11/20 of 20 December 2020 and accompanying guidance notes on reserving public contracts.

The detail of the policy includes a number of important qualifications:
(i) reserving such contracts is discretionary and contracting authorities may continue to allow tenders from EU Member-States (including Ireland) if they consider that doing so will deliver better value for money;

(ii) The reservation policy should not be applied to below threshold procurements which are of cross-border interest (i.e. which may be of potential interest to suppliers from EU Member States including Ireland) AND which involve the provision of goods into Northern Ireland;
(In the context of the island of Ireland, given its geographical proximity and the two-way openness of this market up to now, it is arguable that all such contracts are inherently of “cross-border” interest to ROI suppliers particularly in the border counties.)

(iii) a justification for the decision to reserve/not reserve must be recorded in all cases; and

(iv) in the case of reserved contracts, contracting authorities must satisfy themselves that the tenderers have a substantive business presence or “in the UK and are not simply “brass plate” operations registered in the UK to circumvent the reservation policy.

Given these qualifications, it is clear that the impact on Irish suppliers will very much depend on how the policy is applied in practice. It may be that many contracting authorities in the UK/NI will continue to seek best value for money by generating maximum market response via open competition without availing of the option to reserve. On the other hand, if the policy is applied on a protectionist basis to exclude EU/Irish suppliers as far as possible then that is likely to have political repercussions on the EU/Irish side with inevitable pressure from market operators to apply a reciprocal exclusionary policy vis a vis UK/NI suppliers. (A classic lose-lose outcome of protectionism.)

The UK government is of course within its rights to adopt this course under its WTO commitments, but it seems to have done so with little or no real consideration as to whether this will actually benefit UK/NI taxpayers and UK/NI enterprises in the long term.

You would expect such a major policy change to have been subject to considerable study, analysis, and consultation but there is nothing in the Policy Note to suggest that any assessment of the costs, benefits and risks was undertaken.

The new approach will be seen by many as contrary to the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement as well as having the potential to undermine much of the solid progress achieved by both governments in the promotion of open cross-border and East-West trade over many years since the GFA. This open policy was strongly supported by InterTrade Ireland, one of the cross-border bodies established under the Good Friday Agreement which did great work in educating small suppliers, North and South, on how to go about tendering for public contracts. Those efforts resulted in significant market penetration in both north-South and East-West directions to the mutual benefit of taxpayers and enterprises in both jurisdictions. Taxpayers benefit from greater competition and better value for money. Enterprises benefit from a much bigger market with more opportunities but also from greater competition (which is vital to the long-term health and success of all business.)

Apart from the economic benefits, there was undoubtedly an important “peace dividend” to this activity which helped greatly in terms of improved contacts and understanding between individuals, public bodies, and the business communities both in the North-South and East-West contexts.

Sadly, none of these positives appear to have been considered in adopting the new policy approach and are not even mentioned in the UK Government’s Policy Note and Guidance materials.

I personally hope that the Irish government/EU does not retaliate in kind, but it will be hard to resist the complaints from Irish business who will understandably be very angry if Northern Ireland and UK-based entities have free access to this business in Ireland while Irish operators are being excluded from this sector in the UK and Northern Ireland.

James Farrell
Procurement Research Ltd
6 January 2021

[1] conservative estimate based on typical spend pattern of public bodies on over and under-threshold contracts.

Copyright Bid Services Ltd. The material in this post is purely for information and discussion and does not purport to advise on matters of law.

Filed Under: News, Uncategorised Tagged With: procurement, Procurement and Brexit

Green Start Programme

27th November 2020 By Public Sector Procurement Services

Really pleased we have been approved by Enterprise Ireland as a professional service provider under their Green Start Programme. What this means in practice is that we can support EI clients that need strategic advices and practical assistance in bidding for public and private tenders – in Ireland and abroad – where sustainable procurement criteria are driving the buyer’s decision to purchase

Filed Under: Uncategorised

New Guidance for Green Public Procurement

24th November 2020 By Public Sector Procurement Services

The EPA is developing new guidance for the mandatory use of green pubic procurement (GPP) in Ireland. Embedding GPP in tenders is to be welcomed; it is long overdue. However, the draft guidance document raises a number of important questions as follows.

1. The systematic introduction of GPP selection and award criteria into Irish public tenders (over the EU threshold values) will potentially have a higher impact on reducing national GHG emissions and energy consumption than many other actions identified in the National Energy and Climate Action Plan.
2. The draft guidance is described as a ‘Starter Kit’. Would it not be much better if comprehensive guidance based on the EU’s GPP Toolkit was published now?
3. Quite correctly, the draft guidance hints (but does not require) that the introduction of GPP by a public body should be based on an initial needs assessment (which is a critical element of the EU GPP Toolkit).
4. Only ten product categories have been selected. Why are construction-related procurements such as roads, transport and water and waste water projects and construction products – that are included in the EU GPP guidelines – out of scope of the Irish guidance?
5. The current suite of OGP template tenders and contract documents will need to be changed to give effect to the EPA guidance once it is adopted. Why are no such amendments included in the draft guidance?
6. In compliance with Government guidelines, given the value of public contracts affected and compliance costs, should a full Regulatory Impact Assessment of the draft guidance be undertaken? A RIA could assess whether it makes economic and environmental sense to apply the GPP guidelines to procurements below the EU value threshold as is currently suggested. This requirement is arguably disproportionate. A RIA requires structured stakeholder consultation. To date, to my knowledge there has been no engagement with Irish tenderers. This is a big mistake. The engagement of Irish suppliers is critical to the successful and phased introduction of GPP. Bear in mind that many are at a competitive disadvantage compared to their EU counterparts who are well-accustomed to responding to GPP selection and award criteria for over a decade.
7. The draft guidance has been framed against the background that GPP criteria have been designed to avoid any significant impact on cost or product availability. This is potentially a cop out and could be used, for instance, by some contracting authorities as a justification for ‘doing nothing.’ In fact, Life Cycle Cost calculations, GHG emissions reductions, energy efficiency metrics and the shadow price of carbon should be, where appropriate, a compulsory element of all business cases carried out before a decision is taken to tender based inter alia on GPP criteria. The Public Spending Code could be amended to take account of the proposed mandatory use of GPP.
8. Where is the budget to give effect to the proposed action plan to integrate GPP into procurement practices in Ireland? Why are public bodies only receiving Exchequer support for GPP training and awareness raising? Why is there no counterpart funding for Irish tenderers? In addition, will Exchequer support be provided to encourage Irish tenderers to secure high environmental standards such as ISO14024? If Irish public bodies start insisting on Irish tenderers having mandatory environmental standards as a compliance pre-requisite, more public sector business will go offshore.
9. As a significant amount of energy efficient and sustainable products are imported from the UK, the absence of any mention of Brexit is a gap in the draft guidance.
10. Before detailed sector specific rules are finally agreed, should an assessment of the dynamics of the supply chain in Ireland for the sustainable products to be procured be completed.
11. Could SEAI’s TripleE and energy efficiency standards (IS 399) be explicitly referenced as compulsory selection criteria, where appropriate?
12. A bespoke set of GPP rules could be introduced for significant public sector works projects, such as the €9 billion deep retrofit programme.
13. At present, compliance with GPP guidance is voluntary. Should primary legislation be introduced to make GPP mandatory for tenders above the EU threshold? Could amendments be added to The Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Bill 2020?
14. Who is charge? Should the EPA, OGP, DPER, DECC and/or individual contracting responsibilities be responsible for monitoring compliance with the new GPP guidance? Which organisation will host a GPP Helpdesk?
15. In terms of GPP governance, should a Project Delivery Steering Group, including private sector contractors/tenderers, be set up?

PB
23rd November 2020

The material in this post is purely for information and discussion and does not purport to advise on matters of law. copyright of bidservicesltd.

Filed Under: Uncategorised

Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Bill 2020

15th October 2020 By Public Sector Procurement Services

There is a potential gap in the scope of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Bill 2020: green public procurement. Making GPP mandatory is a Programme of Government commitment. So why not do this in the Climate Action Bill in respect of all tenders valued over the prevailing EU threshold? GPP is the most sustainable, quickest, cost effective and most efficient way to drive down GHG emissions and to improve energy efficiency.

Peter Brennan
peter@bidservices.ie

Filed Under: Uncategorised

Budget 2020 from a procurement point of view

15th October 2020 By Public Sector Procurement Services

Let’s look at the budget from a procurement point of view. Next year the Public Capital Programme will be at a record level at over €10 billion; the commercial semi-state sector will procure at least €8 billion; and Ireland’s 3,000+ contracting authorities will tender for some €15 billion+ in supplies and services. Ireland’s procurement market has grown to €33 billion. Wow. Busy times ahead for buyers and suppliers.

Peter Brennan
peter@bidservices.ie

Filed Under: Uncategorised

Provision of PPE

7th April 2020 By Public Sector Procurement Services

As a result of the unprecedented demands for PPE supplies across the NI Public Sector due to the current and ongoing COVID19 situation, CPD are currently seeking supply of PPE supplies and equipment.

In light of the current situation, Bid Services’ Consultants are waiving all fees to assist organisations in getting registered on etenders NI and completing the required documentation.

The link to the tender is as follows:

https://etendersni.gov.uk/epps/cft/prepareViewCfTWS.do?resourceId=2856716&fbclid=IwAR0BKfeTon0BanUnFlLz218gKTKqiGF7Jq8NGgiOd_FkbnXwudA-qhPfb58
Should you have capability in this area, please email info@bidservices.ie.

We all have a part to play.

Filed Under: Uncategorised

Top Tips from Irelands Procurement Lawyers

15th November 2019 By Public Sector Procurement Services

Top Tips From Ireland’s Procurement Lawyers

I chaired CMG’s www.cmgevents.ie recent conference on procurement and tendering.

Hereunder is a summary of some of the points made by the procurement lawyers who presentted.

Tender Evaluation: Courts look at situations where there is a manifest error. Important that evaluators are not substituted during the evaluation process. The evaluation report, including Conflict of Interest Declarations, should be signed by all evaluators. Keep notes. Give evaluators plenty of time to assess tender responses prior to the evaluation meeting.

Clarifications: Cannot change essential conditions (for example introducing new technical specifications) by means of clarifications prior to submisiosn daedline. Best practice is that clarifications should be sought at evaluation stage, but in so doing a non-compliant submision should not be made compliant as a result of a clarification. Responses to clarifications are contractually binding.

Abnormally low tenders: Should seek clarifications if an abnormally low priced tender (that is not defined) is submitted. Decision taken should be carefully recorded in Procurement Audit Report.

Competitive Dialogue/Competitive Procedure with Negotiation: The use of these procedures must be justified and so recorded in procurement audit report. Main difference is that under CD it is possible to negotiate with preferred tender post Best and Final Offer stage. European Institute of Public Administration has published detailed guidance.

Results Letters: Use OGP templates (January 2019). Communicate characteristics and relative advantages of successful tenderer to compliant tenderers. Only possible to determine ‘relative’ advantages when evaluation of all submissions is completed. Detailed reasons should be given with reference to specifics. Respect tenderer’s confidentiality. A tenderer that is deemed as non-compliant does not need to be provided with a detailed briefing. No need to provide detail debriefing if scores are the same. Detailed narrative should be given to procurements with a contract value below €25,000. No obligation to give a tenderer’s ranking but it is best practice.

Standstill: Essential that a standstill notice letter must give sufficient information to enable an unsuccessful tenderer to decide whether there are grounds for seeking review.
Formal submission of legal papers starts the process.

Debriefing Meeting: Not recommended: ‘too dangerous’. Not a requirement under the procurement rules. Prepare carefully if a de-briefing meeting is agreed. Conduct an independent review of scoring where appropriate. The standstill (30 day) clock will not be reset if a debriefing meeting is held.

Keeping Records: A Procurement Audit Report, with supporting documentation (including evaluators’ notes), must be prepared and kept for three years for all tender competitions above EU threshold and in situations below the threshold where cross-border submissions received. Best practice is to prepare a PAR to support internal audit function.

Pre-tender Consultation: Permissible based on clear rules of engagement but must not result in a violation of the principles of transparency and non-discrimination. No guidance in Regulations about conduct of market consultation. One-on-one meetings most useful. All pre-tender consultation documents must be published. Best practice for high risk procurements.

Estimated contract value: Must be included in contract notice.

Discovery: Recent Court of Appeal ruling may make it more difficult to get discovery of documents.

Confidentiality: Publication of tender price in Contract Award Notice may be withheld if certain conditions met e.g. it might harm legitimate commercial interests of tenderer.

Freedom of Information: Office of the Information Commissioners guidance notes should be consulted. EU procurement law has primacy over Ireland’s FOI Act. Specific rules apply in relation to access to information on the environment.

Know How:https://beta.courts.ie/is a useful web site for sourcing procurement cases.

Peter Brennan

The material in this post is purely for information and discussion and does not purport to advise on matters of law. Any persons affected by the matters discussed in this post should seek legal advice on their particular situation.

Filed Under: Uncategorised

More on EU Public Procurement Stats 2018

16th April 2019 By Public Sector Procurement Services

In a previous post I looked at some figures for EU-level public procurement activity undertaken by Irish contracting authorities in 2018. In this post I will look at the overall figures for the EU 27 as a whole in 2018.

The following is a summary of the main figures:

Type of NoticeEU 27 in 2018Notes
Contract Notice213,731An increase of 8% over 2017 (197,976 )
Open Procedure186,047
Restricted Procedure6,804
Negotiated Procedure9,084(Utilities)
Competitive Procedure with Negotiation10,495Only available to Public Sector Contracting Authorities since the adoption of the 2014 Directives. Take-up has been rapid and 2018 represents a 55% increase on 2017 (6,739).
Competitive Dialogue774An increase of 46% on 2017 (528).
Innovation Partnership77Up from 39 in 2017.
Accelerated Restricted Procedure82
Accelerated Negotiated Procedure16
Other/Not Specified352
Contract Award Notice228,548
Open Procedure181,245
Restricted Procedure10,105
Negotiated Procedure8,875(Utilities)
Competitive Procedure with Negotiation9,287
Competitive Dialogue594
Innovation Partnership51
Accelerated Restricted Procedure86
Accelerated Negotiated Procedure1,939Of which Portugal appears to account for 1,920?
Negotiated procedure without a call for competition10,762Seems very high given that this is supposed to be an exceptional procedure.
Contract award without prior publication/direct award5,015This only relates to acknowledged direct awards. There would appear to be a significant number of direct awards which are not declared via OJEU.
Not Specified /Other589
Other Notices Used in 2018EU 27Notes
Voluntary Ex-Ante Transparency Notices7,061Often published to proof direct awards against challenge under Remedies Directives.
Modification of a Contract/Concession during its term11,144New transparency obligation imposed by 2014 Directives.
Dynamic Purchasing System660Usage increasing following simplification in 2014 Directives. UK appears to be the lead user of DPS with 253 advertised in 2018.
Prior Information Notice without call for competition12,990Often published with a view to reducing response timescales.
Prior information notice with call for competition570New feature of 2014 Directives and not available to central government bodies.
Periodic indicative notice without call for competition557
Periodic indicative notice with call for competition102
Qualification system without call for competition291Available to Utilities only
Qualification system with call for competition593Available to Utilities only

Comment:
The overall scale of activity is truly massive. Anyone who has been involved in just one OJEU-level procedure will appreciate the time and effort involved. The figures suggest that across the EU there are approximately 200,000 procedures in train at any given time. This represents a very large expenditure of effort and resources by public purchasers not to mention the corresponding time, effort and resources of all the economic operators who submit responses.

The most striking trend to emerge from the 2018 figures is the high take-up (10,495) of the new “Competitive Procedure with Negotiation” for which there seems to be a strong demand. It will be interesting to see how the use of this procedure progresses in future years in the light of buyers’ experience. There have always been concerns that, if not used properly, this procedure could shift the balance of bargaining power significantly from purchaser to supplier and lead to adverse outcomes for the taxpayer. A space to be watched.

Another noticeable trend is the increased usage of Dynamic Purchasing Systems (660) and it will also be interesting to follow how this procedure fares in future years. It would seem to have great potential in helping contracting authorities to address recurring purchases of standard “off-the-shelf” goods/services and works.
On the downside, the figures for use of direct awards (5015) and negotiated procedure without a call for competition (10,762) are disappointingly high, considering that these options are supposed to be exceptional and subject to strict limiting conditions.

Another curious feature is the apparently high level of Accelerated Negotiated Procedures used by Portugal in 2018 when it accounted for almost 100% of the use of this procedure across the EU 27.

James Farrell
Senior Procurement Consultant

e: james@publicprocurement.

Procurement Research Ltd. April 2019. The material in this post is purely for information and discussion and does not purport to advise on matters of law. Any persons affected by the matters discussed in this post should seek legal advice on their particular situation.

Filed Under: Uncategorised

Handle with Care: Voluntary Ex-Ante Transparency (VEAT) Notices.

13th March 2019 By Public Sector Procurement Services

Background
The EU Procurement Directives make provision for certain very limited situations where a contracting authority may award contracts without advertised competition. These are set out at Article 32 (2)-(5) of Directive 2014/24/EU (Public Sector), and Article 50 (a)-(j) of the Utilities Directive and Article 31 (4) and (5) of the Concessions Directive. Those situations may be summarised briefly as follows:

The works, supplies or services can be provided by only one economic operator because:
(a) no suitable responses received to a previously-advertised tender competition;
(b) where for uniqueness (e.g. artworks) or technical or intellectual property reasons a product or service may be provided by only one economic operator (NB – subject to very significant additional detailed qualifications);
(c) because of extreme urgency brought about by unforeseen events that are not attributable to the contracting authority.

For supply (goods) contracts where:
(a) the products are purely for research purposes;
(b) additional deliveries by an original supplier (and subject to detailed qualification);
(c) for supplies quoted and purchased on a commodity market;
(d) for purchases on exceptionally advantageous terms due to liquidation of the suppler etc.

For new works or services where:
(a) a contract is to be awarded on foot of a previously advertised design contest;
(b) the new works or services consist of the repetition of similar works or services awarded to the original contractor under an advertised competition, provided that such works or services are in conformity with a basic project for which the original contract was awarded, and, when the basic project was advertised, the extent of possible additional works or services and the conditions under which they will be awarded was made clear (and subject to additional qualifications).

The Recitals to the three Directives (which should always be read carefully if contemplating a direct award) emphasise the very limited scope of these exceptions: “In view of the detrimental effects on competition, negotiated procedures without prior publication of a contract notice should be used only in very exceptional circumstances.”

In other words, the EU legislators were conscious that permitting direct unadvertised awards could facilitate anti-competitive behaviour and so these exceptions are very tightly drawn.

Because they are exceptional grounds, they will be construed narrowly by the courts and the onus will always be on the contracting authority to justify their use.
In short, any contracting authority contemplating the use of these procedures should take considerable care, including seeking legal advice, in order to ensure that they are not caught offside in making illegal direct awards.

Logic would suggest that a prudent contracting authority, if faced with any doubt on the matter, should err on the side of caution and conduct an orthodox advertised tender process.

As explained in my previous post on the Eurotunnel case in the UK, there can be serious consequences in the event that a contracting authority is found to have made an illegal direct award, including the risk of having the contract set aside as ineffective, and/or the award of damages and/or fines.

Voluntary Ex-Ante Transparency Notices
In order to mitigate the risk of ineffectiveness in bona fide cases the EU Remedies Directives make provision for the publication of a Voluntary Ex Ante Transparency Notice which allows for a minimal degree of transparency in direct award situations.

In completing the VEAT notice it is critical that the contracting authority gives sufficient information as to the nature and full extent of the contract and its justification for direct award without OJEU advertising, and observe a minimum 14 day standstill period before the contract is awarded.

This allows economic operators the opportunity to challenge the decision of the contracting authority and either force the holding of an orthodox competition or, should the contracting authority persist with the award, enable an aggrieved party to seek to have the award set aside in court. The advantage to the contracting authority of the VEAT procedure is that the penalty of mandatory ineffectiveness does not apply in the event of a challenge to a contract awarded after the 14-day standstill period has elapsed.

Irish contracting authorities may use the etenders portal to publish VEAT notices in appropriate cases.

According to Tenders Electronic Daily, there were 7,061 VEAT Notices published across the EU 27 in 2018, of which 28 were published by contracting authorities in Ireland. (NB – this is by no means the full extent of direct awards: it appears from the data on the TED website that there were 10,762 contracts awarded across the EU by “negotiated procedure without a call for competition” and a further 5,006 by “direct award without prior publication” during 2018. It seems likely too that a significant but unknowable number of over-threshold contract awards are made throughout the EU without any form of notice being published.)

The significant volume of VEAT notices published annually has given rise to concerns of possible abuse whereby these notices are being “sneaked out” in the hope that interested market operators will not pick up on them or be able to mount a challenge within the very tight limitation period of 14 days (or 10 days in some Member-States).

The European Commission in its most recent Report on the Effectiveness of the Remedies Directives does not appear to share that concern, and the use of VEAT notices is barely mentioned in it.

Another ground for concern is where a contracting authority fails to set out clearly the true nature and extent of the contract in the VEAT Notice, a factor which recently led the English Court of Appeal to set aside as ineffective a land development contract awarded by an English local authority in the Faraday Developments case because the Court found on the facts that the VEAT notice being relied on to resist Faraday’s claim of ineffectiveness failed to give a properly detailed description of the contract and therefore was not a valid notice that could be relied on to prevent the court making a declaration of ineffectiveness.

The European Court of Justice ruling in the Fastweb case C-19/13 (cited in the Faraday case) is also significant in the context of ensuring that direct award decisions are made for bona fide reasons in the limited exceptional circumstances provided for in the Directives.

Conclusion.
While it is useful for procurement officials to be aware of the existence of the VEAT Notice procedure which may be a legitimate option in appropriate cases, they should also be aware of the risks involved and the need for extreme care in making use of it.

James Farrell
Senior Procurement Consultant

e: james@publicprocurement.ie

This post is an exploratory discussion of procurement issues of general interest and does not purport to constitute legal advice.

Filed Under: Uncategorised

Public Procurement Book Launch

22nd August 2016 By Public Sector Procurement Services

Public Procurement Book - Rules of the Road

Some €90 billion in supplies, services and works will be procured in Ireland and Northern Ireland over the next five years—a significant opportunity by any reckoning. While tendering is an essential but a complex task, many companies struggle to submit a compelling and competitively priced tender document. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Uncategorised

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Next Page »

From The Blog

Brexit and Public Procurement

7th January 2021

Brexit and Public Procurement: First Impressions from an Irish Supplier Perspective While the media was obsessively distracted by the last-minute Punch & Judy fish negotiations, little or no attention was paid to public procurement arrangements post-Brexit. This is a far bigger sector of economic activity than fish, estimated to account for approx. £290 billion in […] Read More...

Green Start Programme

27th November 2020

Really pleased we have been approved by Enterprise Ireland as a professional service provider under their Green Start Programme. What this means in practice is that we can support EI clients that need strategic advices and practical assistance in bidding for public and private tenders – in Ireland and abroad – where sustainable procurement criteria […] Read More...

New Guidance for Green Public Procurement

24th November 2020

The EPA is developing new guidance for the mandatory use of green pubic procurement (GPP) in Ireland. Embedding GPP in tenders is to be welcomed; it is long overdue. However, the draft guidance document raises a number of important questions as follows. 1. The systematic introduction of GPP selection and award criteria into Irish public […] Read More...

Our Services

  • Procurement Strategy
  • Requirements Specification
  • Drafting PQQs and RFTs
  • Tender Evaluation
  • Debriefing Support
  • Training

Why Choose Us?

video-placeholder

Contact Us

Public Procurement Services

1.3 Carlisle House, 51 Bracken Road, Sandyford Industrial Estate, Dublin D18 CV48
Tel: +353 1 525 2645
Email: info@publicprocurement.ie

Copyright © 2021 Public Sector Procurement Services