Articles

Third country bids in EU procurement: always excluded?

Third country bids in EU procurement: always excluded?

Third country bids in EU procurement: always excluded?

12.11.2019 EU law

The European Commission recently issued guidance on the participation of third country bidders in public procurement. It clarified bids may be excluded, but remains silent on whether they may be accepted and under which conditions. The Commission is of the opinion that contracting authorities or entities can exclude bids if no access is secured. However, it does not discuss if and under which conditions contracting authorities or entities can allow foreign bids if no access is secured.

The European Commission recently issued guidance on the participation of third country bidders in public procurement. It clarified bids may be excluded, but remains silent on whether they may be accepted and under which conditions. 

Commission guidance on the participation of third country bidders and goods

On 24 July 2019 the European Commission issued a communication on public procurement and the participation of third country bidders to address the lack of level playing field between EU and non-EU bidders, goods and services. Non-EU bidders are not necessarily bound by the same, or equivalent, environmental, social or labour standards as those applicable to EU bidders. Therefore, the Commission aims to stimulate contracting authorities or entities to apply public procurement more strategically to foster innovation, sustainability, green procurement etc. To this end it provides guidance on tools for contracting authorities or entities to ensure such strategic goals when dealing with third country participation. The Commission discusses the ability to reject abnormally low tenders and to insert quality standards (applicable to all bids alike, foreign or not), as well as the access of third country bidders to the EU procurement market.

The guidance stresses that the EU has granted access to its procurement market under international agreements such as the Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) and bilateral free trade agreements. Moreover, the Public Contracts Directive and the Utilities Directive require equally favourable treatment to EU and non-EU works, supplies, services and economic operators to the extent an international agreement covers the procurement. 

The guidance emphasises that economic operators from third countries or foreign goods and services have no secured access to EU procurement procedures outside the scope of these abovementioned international agreements. This may according to the guidance result in exclusion. 

This way, the Commission appears to indicate that contracting authorities or entities have the right but not the obligation to reject foreign bids if access is not secured. Nevertheless, the guidance does not explicitly confirm that such foreign bids can be allowed. 

EU International Procurement Instrument

In previous documents, the Commission did not expand on this question either. The Commission’s proposal for an international procurement instrument (IPI), would provide for a price penalty whenever there is a substantial lack of reciprocal opening of public procurement access in the originating country. In essence, this proposed regulation would allow the Commission to investigate the access that EU economic operators have to the procurement market of a third country. If the Commission established disadvantageous treatment of EU goods, it could request the third country to open up its procurement market. If unsuccessful, a 20% price penalty could be imposed for the evaluation of the bids from this third country (article 8). Importantly, the proposal would also prevent member states and contracting authorities or entities to restrict access beyond the price penalty (article 1.5). It would thus prevent more restrictive measures, such as an exclusion. Interestingly, a previous version of the proposal explicitly allowed exclusion under certain circumstances as an alternative course of action (article 6). 

The IPI proposal has been dormant since 2016. However, in early 2019 the Commission urged Council and Parliament to continue the legislative process, and to adopt the IPI before the end of 2019. Progress would appear more likely now since several Member States (Germany, France, Spain) have indicated that their position has changed. 

In any case, the IPI proposal does not discuss the question whether contracting authorities or entities could allow foreign bids and under which conditions. 

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that contracting authorities or entities can exclude bids if no access is secured. This is at least the case as long as the IPI proposal is not adopted which would prevent more restrictive measures than the 20% price penalty. 

However, both the recent Commission guidance and the IPI proposal do not discuss if and under which conditions contracting authorities or entities can allow foreign bids if no access is secured. 

Team

Related news

09.01.2020 NL law
Access to the file in Dutch competition procedures: too little too late?

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM’s and European Commission’s approach to access to the file are not aligned. According to an interim relief judge, the ACM cannot be forced to grant a company access to a broader set of documents in competition procedures. A potential error in the administrative procedure can be remedied before a court at a later stage. This is different to the right to access to the Commission’s file during administrative procedures, as acknowledged in EU case law.

Read more

09.01.2020 NL law
Competition rules and globalisation to face off in 2020

Short Reads - 2020 will likely revolve around the question whether competition rules should yield to globalisation and digitisation, with suggestions ranging from mere tweaks to competition rules to complementary regulation. Greater cooperation across data protection, consumer protection and competition law appears inevitable. Speedier solutions in more informal settings may become a reality, alongside more frequent use of behavioural remedies.

Read more

09.01.2020 NL law
Deleting WhatsApp chats during dawn raids may cost you dearly

Short Reads - Companies should be aware that the Dutch competition authority (ACM) will not only examine electronic records and emails, but can also check WhatsApp messages during dawn raids. The ACM recently imposed a fine of EUR 1.84 million on a company for non-cooperation with a dawn raid; its highest fine so far for non-cooperation. Several of the company’s employees had left WhatsApp groups and deleted chats before handing over their mobile phones for inspection.

Read more

09.01.2020 BE law
Stibbe announces new Counsel and Of Counsel appointments

Inside Stibbe - Brussels, 9 January 2020 – The Brussels office of Stibbe has promoted Delphine Gillet (EU/Competition), Jan Proesmans (Employment, Benefits, and Pensions) and Sophie Bourgois (Dispute Resolution) to Counsel and Elisabeth Baeyens (Dispute Resolution) to Of Counsel. The new appointments have taken effect on 1 January 2020.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring