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

06.05.2021 EU law
Abuse of economic dependence: lessons drawn from the first judgments

Short Reads - On 22 August 2020, the ban on abuse of economic dependence was implemented in Belgium (Article IV.2/1 of the Code of Economic Law). Now that almost a year has passed and the first judgments have been rendered, we assess what first lessons can be drawn from these judgments. The rulings show that the ban is regularly relied upon in court and has lowered the hurdle for plaintiffs to make their case.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
ECJ in Pometon: beware of too much info in staggered hybrid proceedings

Short Reads - In hybrid cartel proceedings (in which one party opts out of settlement), settlement decisions should not pre-judge the outcome of the Commission's investigation into non-settling parties. When the Commission publishes the settlement decision before the decision imposing a fine on the non-settling party, it must be careful in its drafting, the European Court of Justice confirmed. Furthermore, differences in the fining methodology applied to (similarly placed) settling and non-settling parties will have to be objectively justified and sufficiently reasoned.

Read more