TI Integrity Pact Preventing corruption in public procurement Good Practice Germany: Airport Berlin City Hospital - Bremen Dr. K. Schubert, MPH Budapest

TI Integrity Pact Public Procurement involves vast sums of money Investments by Federal, State and Municipalities Complexity and technical nature scare off public scrutiny Invites corruption ( authority and contractors) IP concept developed in 1995

TI Integrity Pact The Concept: Contractual Agreement between Owner and Contractors to forego all forms of corruption External independent expert Monitor Help to governments and municipalities

TI Integrity Pact The Objective: Make Bidders/Contractors refrain from corruption Help Authorities to avoid damage from corruption Restore public trust in government

TI Integrity Pact Structure of IP: Pledge of Owner Pledge of Bidders/Contractors Sanctions Monitor (external independent expert)

TI Integrity Pact Pledge of the Owner/ Authority: No employee will accept or demand presents or other advantages for performing official acts Equal information for all bidders No confidential information for some bidders Disclosure of all real/potential conflicts of interest Every suspicion of a criminal act will be investigated

TI Integrity Pact Pledge of Bidder/Contractor/Sub-Contractor: Not to give or offer any gifts or other advantages No collusion with other bidders No acceptance of advantages for unprofessional behaviour Disclose any payments to agents or middlemen Consultants: Assure real competition in selection of “winner”

TI Integrity Pact Sanctions: Owner to apply internally: –Disciplinary, criminal, civil and labor law sanctions on own staff Bidder subject to: –Denial/Loss of Contract –Forfeiture of bid bonds and similar securities –Liability to pay damages –Exclusion from future contracts

TI Integrity Pact Transparency of Process: Broad transparency of all relevant decisions and process steps Evaluation of Bids Application of all selection criteria Protection only for real business secrets

TI Integrity Pact Five Integrity Pacts in Germany – –all accompanied by monitors –2005, 2009, 2010 (2x), 2011 International Airport Berlin (BBI): –2005 –Financial volume: about 5,1 Billion € (2014) –1,7 Billion € (2004)

TI Integrity Pact - BBI Monitor –Professor and consultant engineer –External indipendent expert –Full-time –Office on the airport-area –Continouosly involved in the process

TI Integrity Pact - BBI Monitor: Scrutiny: –100 (101) international contract placings - 2 Mio € (100%) –48 (466) national contract placings - 37 Mio € (101 Mio €) –35 modifications (1.800) - 68,2 Mio € 200 Mio € No corruption – but mismanagement

Project structure Bremen Reconstruction of part of a clinical building –Financial volume: about 250 Mio € Owner: Gesundheit Nord gGmbH (federal gov.) Bremen: 4 communal hospitals Biggest hospital in town –Since 1850 Reputation of the hospital –„Dirty money clinic“ – Schwarzgeldklinik –Previous corruption experience

Situation in a City State Berlin, Hamburg, Bremen - City states Short ways –Everybody knows everybody –Indipendent of their political background Sleaze –Mutuality –Gateway for corruption Corruption in Public Procurement

IP - Contact person Contact to the IP – project Contact to the monitor Contact to the owner Contact to the regional group of TI Information mediated by the monitor Conferences / round table with the player Press releases (Bremen-Berlin)

The Monitor I Independent, external Expert(s) Representative of Civil Society or professional Expert Selection: Owner + TI or public tender Unlimited access to all information and meetings If violations suspected: first, discuss with Owner If no adequate correction: Report to Public Prosecutor Paid by Owner

The Monitor II (Bremen) Were chosen by TI Highly specialized lawyer Highly specialized engineer Scrutiny: International and national contract placings Modifications No corruption – but mismanagement

Good Experience I Feed-back: Owner company (GeNo): 1.Security 1.No Loss of money 2.Aggreements be held 3.Control of internal rules 2.Experience of the Monitor 1.Lawyer – construction expert 2.Appearance not announced 3.Many useful preventive advices 3.High preventive dimension

Good Experience II Feed-back: Construction company 1.Transparent and fair competition 1.No need of bribe 2.No disadvantage between bidders 2.Trustful cooperation 3.Attractive Public Reputation 1.Advantage in further competition 4.Economical benefit 5.Internal Control of public procurement

Thank you For Listening