Controls and actions made by Public Procurement Council Hungary Dr. András Nagy legal advisor Public Procurement Council

Introduction 1995 – first PP Act New institutional frame Control & audit bodies: PP Council (Arbitration Committee), State Audit Office, Government Control Office, Competition Board, courts

Role of PP Council Main activities a) contributing to PP policy b) the publication of tender notices c) legal remedy system d) help-desk function e) international relations f) controling the amendment/execution of contracts

Controls made by PP Council /1 Publication of tender notices  centralized system (i.e. obligation to send tender notices to PP Council)  legal revisers check them  publish if correct - send back if incorrect  send a massage to the members of PP Council, if the notice hasn’t been corrected  members entitled to launch legal remedy procedure

Controls made by PP Council /2 Legal remedy system – Arbitration Committee  quasi judicial body  judging in a group of 3 commissioner  starts procedure ex officio or on request  any decision of a CA or the behaviour of a tenderer can be challenged  before and after the contract is signed

Controls made by PP Council /2 Interim measures a)suspending the procedure b)prohibiting the signing of the contract Legal consequences: a)nullifying the decision b)imposing fine c)prohibiting tenderer to take part in pp procedures

Controls made by PP Council /3 Controling the amendment/execution of contracts  Basis of such controling function: a)PP rules on the limited possibility of amending a contract, and certain rules on the execution of the contract (otherwise ciwil law applies) b)controling of tender notices (information notice about the amendment/execution of contract) c)possibility of ex officio procedure before the Arbitration Committee d)possibility to impose fine as a sanction

Controls made by PP Council /3  fields within the notice: a)Is the amendment in connection with evaluation criteria? b)What is the content of the amendment? c)What was the reason for amending the contract? d)Was the execution in line with the contract? e)If not, the type/content/reason of breaching the contract f)Which party is liable for the breach of the contract?

Other actions Electronic publication of tender notices, new portal with different search options (since 1 July 2008) Comprehensive study on the link between corruption and contract awards (by the end of 2008) Comprehensive database of public procurements (by the end of 2009)

Other actions /1 - New portal

Other actions /2 Comprehensive study on corruption and contract award 3 parts: a) synthesis of scientific publications b) analysis of press news and articles c) analysis of surveys on public opinions Surveys on ‘public’ opinions in 3 groups: a) contracting authorities b) tenderers c) official public procurement consultants

Other actions /2 Comprehensive study on corruption and contract award Methods of surveys: a) questionnaire (900 persons) b) interview (120 persons) Preliminary remarks: a) collusion of contracting authorities and tenderers in order to create preferable conditions (technical specifications, suitability criteria, etc.) b) collusion of tenderers to share the market c) misuse of exceptionaly available types of procedures (i.e. negotiated procedure), illegal buying under threshold

Other actions /3 Comprehensive database of public procurements Make connection between 3 databases: a) tender notices b) contracts c) review decisions Put all publicly avaliable information of a contract award procedure into 1 folder  raising transparency

Thank you for your attention!