Interesting AG Opinion on State aid analysis of procurement compliance, definition of public works contracts, and ‘strategic’ use of remedies by contracting authorities (C-28/23)

On 11 April 2024, AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered his Opinion in NFŠ (C-28/23, EU:C:2024:306). The NFŠ Opinion is very interesting in three respects. First, in addressing some aspects of the definition of public works contracts that keep coming up in litigation in relation to relatively complex real estate transactions. Second, in addressing the effects of a State aid decision on the assessment of compliance with procurement law of the legal structure used to implement the aid package. Third, in addressing some limits on the ‘strategic’ use of remedies by contracting authorities that have breached procurement law. Before providing some comments on the Opinion, I need to make two disclaimers.

The first one is that, exceptionally, I have been involved in the legal proceedings before the ECJ. At the request of NFŠ, I wrote an expert statement addressing some of the issues raised by the case. I am very pleased to see that my own legal analysis coincides with that of AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona, and I hope the Court will also share it in the forthcoming Judgment.

Second, it is worth stressing that this is not a bread and butter procurement case and referring to the legal structure can be cumbersome or confusing if not done precisely. Unfortunately, this has happened in the English translation of the AG Opinion, which is rather poor in some areas. In particular, crucial paragraphs 81 and 96 are incorrectly translated and convey a confusing position. To avoid those issues, I rely on my own translation of the Spanish and French versions of the Opinion (and highlight it where my own translation deviates from the ECJ’s one by placing the relevant parts in [square brackets and italics]).

Background

In short, the case arises from a dispute between the Slovak Government and NFŠ in relation to the Slovak national football stadium. Despite having provided State aid for the construction of the stadium, the State is now unwilling to purchase it from NFŠ in the terms of the aid package. This has resulted in domestic litigation. The request from a preliminary reference emerges in this context.

In 2013, the Slovak Government entered into a grant agreement with NFŠ to support the construction of the national football stadium in Bratislava. However, construction did not immediately proceed and the level of financial support was in need of review. The grant agreement was revised in 2016 (the ‘grant agreement’). In addition to the grant for the construction of the stadium, the Slovak Government also granted NFŠ a unilateral put option to sell the stadium to the State, under certain conditions, during the five years following its completion (the ‘agreement to enter into a future sales agreement’ or ‘AFSA’).

Slovakia notified this set of agreements to the European Commission as State aid. In 2017, the Commission declared those measures to be compatible with the internal market by Decision State Aid SA.46530. The State aid Decision made it clear that the total volume of aid comprised the direct grant plus the value of the put option, and that those modalities and that level of aid were justified in view of the need to provide sufficient financial incentives to get the stadium developed. In relation to the put option, the Commission stated that ‘The option given to the beneficiary allows it to sell the Stadium back to the State in case it wishes to do so. Should the beneficiary decide to exercise the option, the Stadium would become a property of the State’ (para 22). In relation to the obligation to subject the construction of the stadium to competitive public procurement, the State aid Decision also explicitly stated that ‘The construction works financed through the grant … will be subject to a competitive process, respecting the applicable procurement rules’ (para 8).

NFŠ undertook the development of the stadium and awarded contracts for different parts of the works under competitive tender procedures compliant with the Slovak transposition of EU law. All tenders were advertised in the Official Journal of the European Union and in the Slovak official journal. Once the stadium was completed and in operation, NFŠ decided to exercise the put option and called on the Slovak Government to purchase the stadium in the terms foreseen in AFSA.

Simply put, in order to try to avoid the obligation to purchase the football stadium in the terms set out in AFSA, the Slovak Government is arguing that the agreements are null and void because, combined and from the outset, the grant agreement and AFSA would have had the unavoidable effect of getting the stadium built and transferred to the State, and thus cover up the illegal direct award of a public works contract to NFŠ. This part of the dispute concerns the definition of ‘public works contracts’ under Directive 2014/24/EU (section 1 below).

Relatedly, the Slovak Government states that despite containing explicit references to the tendering of the construction of the stadium, the State aid Decision cannot preempt a fresh assessment of the compliance of this legal structure with EU procurement rules. Perhaps surprisingly, this position has been supported by the European Commission, which denied that the explicit mention of compliance with procurement law formed an integral part of its assessment of the compatibility of the set of agreements with EU internal market law. This is a crucial issue and the outcome of this case can provide much needed clarity on the extent to which the Commission does, and indeed must, take procurement law into account in the assessment of State aid measures that involve the award of public contracts. This part of the dispute thus concerns the effect of State aid decisions relating to aid packages with a procurement element (section 2 below).

Finally, it is also important in the case that the State seeks confirmation of the possibility of having the ineffectiveness of the grant agreement and AFSA recognised ex tunc under domestic law, without this being a breach of the Remedies Directive. This relates to the ‘strategic’ use of procurement remedies by contracting authorities that have breached procurement law (section 3 below).

The AG Opinion deals with these issues and is interesting in all respects, but specially the latter two, where it breaks new ground.

1. Definition of a ‘public works contract’

The first issue addressed in the AG Opinion concerns whether the grant agreement and AFSA create such a set of obligations on NFŠ as beneficiary of the aid and developer of the stadium that, in reality, they amount to the illegal direct award of a public works contract for the construction of the stadium. There are three main issues that require detailed consideration:

  • whether the contractor had assumed a legally enforceable direct or indirect obligation to carry out the works;

  • whether the works should be executed in accordance with the requirements specified by the contracting authority, which thus had decisive influence over the project; and

  • whether the contracting authority would obtain a direct economic benefit.

The AG Opinion provides a helpful summary of the case law on these issues (see paras 52-54) and additional guidance on how to apply them in the case, raising significant questions on whether these criteria were met—although the final assessment must be carried out by the referring court.

Legally Enforceable Obligation

First, the Opinion stresses that it is unclear that NFŠ was placed under a legally enforceable obligation to build and transfer the stadium as a result of the grant agreement and AFSA. Importantly, the AG distinguishes the existence of an enforceable obligation to carry out the works from the existence of legal consequences from deciding not to do so. As the Opinion makes clear, the simple existence of the agreements to subsidise the development of the stadium does not ‘support the inference that the Slovak State would have any right to take legal action against NFŠ to compel it to build the stadium should that undertaking ultimately decide not to do so. [A different issue is whether], in that event, NFŠ would not have received the grant, or would have lost it, or would [have been] obliged to pay it back. This in itself, however, has nothing to do with the performance of a works contract’ (para 59).

This is important because it sets the threshold at which a ‘commitment’ to carry out works becomes a legally enforceable obligation for the purposes of EU public procurement law. It reflects an understanding that there has to be a right (in principle) to require specific performance (performance in natura), not solely the existence of legal consequences arising from a decision not to follow through with such a commitment. This is further supported in the fact that ‘the mere grant of a State subsidy involving the [disbursement] of public funds (in the present case, for the purpose of constructing a stadium) does not in itself amount to the conclusion of a public works contract. As recital 4 of Directive 2014/24 states, “the Union rules on public procurement are not intended to cover all forms of disbursement of public funds, but only those aimed at the acquisition of works, supplies or services for consideration by means of a public contract”’ (para 48, underline emphasis in the original).

The Opinion further stresses that:

in order for there to be a genuine works contract, it is essential that the successful tenderer should specifically take on the obligation to carry out the works forming the subject of the acquisition and that that obligation should be legally enforceable [in court]. The contracting authority … must acquire the [building] on which the works are carried out and, [where applicable], [be able to] take legal action [in court] to compel the tenderer awarded the contract to [transfer it], if it holds [legal title covering the encumbrance of the works for the purposes of public use] (para 60, underline emphasis in the original).

This concerns the legal enforceability of the put option from the perspective of the State. In that regard, it will be necessary for the referring court to establish ‘whether NFŠ, once the sports infrastructure had been built, had a legally enforceable obligation to transfer it to the Slovak State, which the latter could assert’ (para 61). The Opinion suggests that this is highly implausible, given that ‘all the indications are that the agreement to enter into a future sales agreement gave NFŠ the option either to remain the owner of the stadium and continue to operate it (or assign its operation to third parties), or to transfer it [to] the Slovak State, if [doing so suited that undertaking]’ (para 62).

Moreover, and this is a crucially interesting aspect of the case, the Opinion stresses that the assessment of the legal enforceability of the put option had already been the object of analysis by the European Commission in its State aid decision and that the Commission had confirmed that it enabled NFŠ ‘ (but does not oblige it) to sell the infrastructure to the Slovak State if that undertaking wishes to do so’ (para 63). This will be particularly relevant in view of the effects of the State aid Decision discussed in section 2 below.

Specifications by the Contracting Authority

A second issue of relevance in the case is that the aid package required for the stadium to meet ‘UEFA Regulations on the construction of category 4 stadiums and those contained in the general Slovak rules on sports infrastructure projects’ (para 65). This raises the question whether the contracting authority could exercise ‘decisive influence over the construction project’ by requiring compliance with those requirements (ibid) and participating in a monitoring committee. The Opinion focuses on the material impact of those circumstances on the development of the project.

Interestingly, the Opinion stresses that ‘UEFA criteria … consist of a number of mandatory parameters in relation to the minimum structural requirements which a stadium must meet in order to be classified in a certain category. However, those criteria are amenable to a variety of architectural solutions that can be developed within very broad margins of professional creativity’; and that ‘The design of football stadiums that comply with the UEFA criteria allows for an extensive range of creative alternatives, both in the external configuration of the stadium and in the structuring of its internal amenities. Those criteria do not … contain the detailed technical solutions which a true proprietor of the work could impose on the tenderer awarded the contract’ (paras 66-67, reference omitted).

This part of the Opinion is interesting in the context of drawing the boundaries between real estate transactions that will be caught or not by the procurement rules because it comes to develop the guidance offered by previous case law (recently C‑537/19, EU:C:2021:319) on the extent to which the specifications need to be sufficiently detailed to exceed the usual requirements of a tenant (C‑536/07, EU:C:2009:664). The further clarification is, in my view, that the specifications should be such as to significantly constrain or predetermine architectural solutions in the design of the works.

Direct Economic Benefit to the Contracting Authority

The Opinion directly refers to the case law on the need that ‘In a public works contract, the contracting authority receives a service consisting of the realisation of works which it seeks to obtain and which has a direct economic benefit for it’ (para 52). In that regard, the Opinion stresses that it is not sufficient for the Slovak State to have an ‘interest (and subsequent indirect benefit) … confined to the generic promotion of the national sport’ (para 64). This is also important because it clarifies the threshold of ‘directness’ and magnitude of the interest that must arise for a legal transaction to be classed as a public contract.

2. Effect of State aid decisions relating to aid packages with a procurement element

Perhaps the most interesting issue that the AG Opinion deals with is the extent to which a State aid Decision declaring a legal structure with explicit procurement implications compatible with the internal market pre-empts a separate assessment of its compliance with EU public procurement law.

As mentioned above, in the NFŠ case, the State aid notification had provided details on the grant agreement and AFSA, and made it explicit that the beneficiary of the aid would run public tenders for the competitive award of contracts for the subsidized works. The Commission explicitly referred to this in the Decision, indicating that ‘The construction works financed through the grant … will be subject to a competitive process, respecting the applicable procurement rules’.

As a starting point, AG Campos stresses that, consequently, any assessment of compliance with EU law cannot ignore ‘the considerations set out by the Commission in Decision SA.46530 in connection with the content of the grant agreement and the agreement to enter into a future sales agreement, where it found that, through those agreements, the Slovak State had granted public aid compatible with the internal market’ (para 47).

In more detail, the AG stresses that ‘the Commission examined the grant agreement and the agreement to enter into a future sales agreement. In Decision SA.46530, it evaluated the public aid associated with those agreements and declared it to be compatible with the internal market’ and that ‘A reading of paragraph 8 shows that what mattered to the Commission was that the construction of the stadium (which represents the very essence of a works contract, whether public or private) should be [subjected to] a competitive process respecting the rules applicable to public contracts’ (para 72, reference omitted, and para 74, underline emphasis in the original).

The AG stressed that the Commission confirmed that this was ‘an essential condition for the compatibility of the aid with the internal market’ (para 73). This led the AG to find that the State aid Decision had the effect of triggering the application of the EU procurement rules by NFŠ, ‘which was put in a situation analogous to that of a contracting authority’ (para 75) and, implicitly, that compliance with EU procurement law concerned the contract/s for the works to be tendered by NFŠ, not the award of the State aid to NFŠ.

Crucially, AG Campos spelled out the implications of such consideration by the Commission of the procurement implications of the State aid package within the procedure for State aid control. In his view:

The Commission can actively intervene in defence of competition where public procurement does not comply with the rules laid down in, inter alia, Directive 2014/24 in order to safeguard this objective [to ensure that “public procurement is opened up to competition”]. I do not see any reason why it should not do so when faced with an examination of the viability of State aid measures resulting from agreements concluded by public authorities with private entities.

In particular, it is my view that the Commission could not have failed to examine whether the form in which the public aid granted to NFŠ was structured masked the existence of a public contract which should have been put out to tender. To my mind, it did so implicitly, which explains paragraph 8 of its Decision SA.46530.

In short, Decision SA.46530 is based on the premiss that there was no obligation to transfer ownership of the stadium to the Slovak Republic. That assumption, to which I have already referred, cannot be called into question by the referring court, which must respect the Commission’s assessment of the factors determining the existence of State aid (paras 77-79, underline emphasis in the original, other emphasis added).

This sets out two important implications. The first one, of relatively more limited scope but crucial practical importance, is that as an implicit effect of the Commission’s monopoly of enforcement of the State aid rules, a previous State aid decision does preclude a fresh assessment of a legal structure for the purposes of its compliance with public procurement law. A national court called upon to assess such legal structure cannot call the Commission’s assessment and must respect the Commission’s assessment of the factors determining the existence of State aid. In the NFŠ case, given that the Commission had clearly assessed the put option as entirely discretionary for NFŠ, it is not now possible for the referring court to deviate from that assessment and consider that it established an obligation legally enforceable by the Slovak Government. This carries the additional implication that the legal structure cannot be classed as a public works contract for the purposes of Directive 2014/24/EU.

Therefore, on this point, the AG could have been clearer and made it explicit that, even if the referring court is in principle tasked with the clarification of the relevant circumstances and their legal classification, in this case and given the prior binding assessment of the Commission, it is not possible to rely on the put option under AFSA to class the legal structure as a public works contract because there was no legally binding obligation concerning the transfer of the stadium. However, this conclusion is plain from the joint reading of paras 63 and 79 of the Opinion.

The second implication is that, by way of principle, there is a general obligation for the Commission to assess the compatibility with the EU public procurement law of State aid measures that have procurement implications. I think this is a clarification of the existing case law on the duty on the Commission to assess State aid measures for compliance with other sets of EU internal market law and a very welcome development given the very close connection between State aid and procurement, as evidenced amongst other sources in the Commission’s guidance on the notion of State aid.

3. ‘Strategic’ use of procurement remedies by contracting authorities

A final issue which is also very interesting is that the case provides a very uncommon set of circumstances whereby the same authority that had granted State aid and accepted the legality of the legal structure creating the put option under which it would be purchasing the stadium is later on (under different political circumstances) trying to get out of its obligations and, in doing so, seeks to gain support for its position from the rules on contractual ineffectiveness in the Remedies Directive—with any such effectiveness arising from its own alleged circumvention of EU procurement law.

Of the treatment of this issue in the AG Opinion, I think the following passages are particularly relevant:

Directive 89/665 is not designed to protect the public authorities from infringements which they themselves have committed, but to allow those who have been harmed by the actions of those contracting authorities to challenge them.

Article 2d of Directive 89/665 presupposes that a person entitled to challenge the conduct of the contracting authority has made use of the relevant review procedure. If, at the end of that review, the body adjudicating on it declares the contract in question to be ineffective, the provisions contained in the various paragraphs of that article will be triggered. As I have already said, however, Directive 89/665 does not make provision for the contracting authority to challenge its own decisions.

[A different issue is whether] national law provides ways for a public authority (or an administrative review body) to review the legality of its previous decisions. Such an eventuality is governed not by Directive 89/665 but by the relevant provisions of national law, in accordance with which it will fall to be determined to what extent an exception may be made to the classic rule venire contra factum propium nulli conceditur (paras 88-90, reference omitted, emphasis added).

I think this may have not needed spelling out except in a bizarre case such as NFŠ. However, I also think that this clarification can have broader implications in relation to the (separate) trend to recognize ‘subjective rights’ to contracting authorities under EU public procurement law (see eg in relation to exclusion decisions in (C-66/22, EU:C:2023:1016; for discussion see here).

Final thoughts

I think NFŠ will be an important case and I very much hope that the Court will follow AG Campos in this case. I also hope that the clarification of the aspects concerning the effect of State aid decisions and, more importantly, the general duty for the Commission to assess compliance of State aid measures with EU public procurement law, will explicitly feature in the judgment of the Court. I also hope the remarks on the inaccessibility of procurement remedies for the contracting authorities that have infringed EU procurement law will feature in the judgment. All of this will provide helpful clarity on issues that should be uncontroversial under general EU law, but which seem to be susceptible of fueling litigation at domestic level.

The principle of competition is dead. Long live the principle of competition (recording)

Here is the recording for the first part of today’s seminar ‘The principle of competition is dead. Long live the principle of competition’, with renewed thanks to Roberto Caranta, Trygve Harlem Losnedahl and Dagne Sabockis for sharing their great insights. A transcript is available here, as well as the slides I used. As always, comments welcome and more than happy to continue the discussion!

Will the ECJ mandate protectionism in procurement -- comments on AG Collins' Kolin Opinion (C-652/22)

In the Opinion in Kolin Inşaat Turizm Sanayi ve Ticaret (C-652/22, EU:C:2024:212, hereafter ‘Kolin’), Advocate General Collins has argued that only economic operators established in countries party to international agreements on public contracts that bind the EU may rely on the provisions of Directive 2014/25/EU. This would imply that economic operators established in other countries are not entitled to participate in a public contract award procedure governed by Directive 2014/25/EU and, consequently, are unable to rely on the provisions of that Directive before Member State courts. In my view, this interpretation is both protectionist and problematic. The ECJ should not follow it. In this blog I sketch the reasons for this view.

Limited (international law) obligation of equal treatment does not imply a general (EU) obligation to exclude or discriminate

The Kolin Opinion concerns the interpretation of Art 43 of Directive 2014/25/EU, which could be relevant to the interpretation of Art 25 of Directive 2014/24/EU (on which see A La Chimia, ‘Article 25’ in R Caranta and A Sanchez-Graells (eds), European Public Procurement. Commentary on Directive 2014/24/EU (Edward Elgar 2021) 274-286. Art 43 of Dir 2014/25/EU establishes that:

In so far as they are covered by Annexes 3, 4 and 5 and the General Notes to the European Union’s Appendix I to the GPA and by the other international agreements by which the Union is bound, contracting entities within the meaning of Article 4(1)(a) shall accord to the works, supplies, services and economic operators of the signatories to those agreements treatment no less favourable than the treatment accorded to the works, supplies, services and economic operators of the Union.

AG Collins considers that

It follows that economic operators from non-covered third-countries do not fall within the scope ratione personae of Directive 2014/25 ... Since the applicant is not entitled to participate in a procedure for the award of a public contract governed by Directive 2014/25, it cannot seek to rely on the provisions thereof before a Member State court. The referring court therefore cannot obtain a response to a reference for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of those provisions, since any answer that the Court might give to its request would not have binding effect. That reason suffices to justify a finding that this reference for a preliminary ruling is inadmissible (para 33, emphases added).

This position implies a logical jump in the reasoning. While it is plain that only economic operators from covered third-countries have a legally enforceable right to participate in public tenders on equal terms, it is by no means clear that other economic operators must necessarily be excluded from participation. If that was the plain interpretation and implication of that provision (and Art 25 Dir 2014/24/EU), the Commission would not have needed to develop the International Procurement Instrument (IPI) to establish circumstances in which exclusion of economic operators from non-covered third countries can be mandated. Along the same lines, AG Rantos argued in the Opinion in CRRC Qingdao Sifang and Others (C-266/22, EU:C:2023:399, not available in English) that ‘Member States can grant less favourable treatment to economic operators from non-covered third parties’ (para 65, own translation from Spanish).

In fact, as the Opinion reflects, ‘[a]lmost all of the parties to the procedure before the Court take the view that Member States may regulate the participation of economic operators from third-countries in procedures for the award of public contracts’ (para 35). In particular, the Croatian government submitted ‘that EU law contains no general prohibition on the participation of economic operators from third-countries in procedures for the award of public contracts in the European Union’ and provided sound arguments in support of that, as the ‘Commission’s Guidance on the participation of third-country bidders confirms that proposition where it states that economic operators from third-countries may be excluded from these procedures, without requiring their exclusion’ (para 36). Those arguments are also aligned with AG Rantos’ CRRC Opinion (paras 72-74). Estonia also submitted there is no obligation under EU law to limit participation by economic operators from non-covered third parties (para 38). Denmark, France, and Austria also considered that there is no ban stemming from EU law, even if the Union has exclusive competence in relation to the common commercial policy (paras 39-40). This should have given the AG pause.

Instead, as suggested by the Commission, AG Collins seeks to support the Opinion’s logical jump in an additional legal argument based on the remit of the EU’s competence to regulate the participation of economic operators from third-countries in procurement procedures in the European Union. The key issue here is not whether the EU has an exclusive or a shared competence in procurement, but that AG Collins considers that

… by adopting Article 43 of Directive 2014/25, the European Union has exercised its competence in relation to economic operators established in a country party to the GPA or to another international agreement on the award of public contracts by which the European Union is bound. … economic operators established in Türkiye do not come within that category. Although the European Union has not exercised its exclusive competence to establish whether economic operators from non-covered third-countries may participate in such procedures, Member States may not rely on that fact in order to regain competence to act in that area (para 50, emphases added).

Since the European Union does not appear to have exercised its exclusive competence to determine access by economic operators from non-covered third-countries to procedures for the award of public contracts, Member States wishing to take steps to that end may inform the competent EU institutions of their proposed course of action with a view to obtaining the requisite authorisation. Nothing in the Court’s file indicates that Croatia has taken such a step. Second, unilateral action by Member States could undermine the European Union’s bargaining position in the context of its efforts to open, on a reciprocal basis, markets for public contracts in third countries. Third, it could interfere with the uniform application of EU law, since in such circumstances the application of Directive 2014/25 ratione personae could vary from one Member State to another. (para 52, emphases added).

In my view, AG Collins is conflating normative and positive analysis. It is clear that dissimilar approaches in the Member States undermine the Commission’s bargaining position—thus the need to bring in the IPI as well as other instruments such as the Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR)—and can lead an absence of uniformity in the application of the Directive. However, these are normative issues. From a positive standpoint, it is in my view incorrect to state that the EU has exercised its competence in relation to GPA and other covered third country operators through Article 43 of Directive 2014/25/EU or, for that matter, Article 25 of Directive 2014/24/EU. The exercise of the relevant competence concerns the entering into those international treaties, not the internal legislative measures put in place to promote their effectiveness.

To me, it is clear that the obligation to grant equal treatment to GPA and other covered economic operators stems from the GPA or the relevant international treaty, not the Directive. Art 43 Dir 2014/25/EU (and Art 25 Dir 2014/24/EU are mere reminders of the obligations under international law and cannot alter them. Their omission would not have made any difference in covered third country economic operators’ legal position. By the same token, their inclusion cannot serve to prejudice the position of non-covered third country economic operators. As above, the whole process leading to the IPI and FSR would have been entirely superfluous. In my view, the Kolin Opinion follows too closely the dangerously protectionist policy approach pushed by the Commission, and does so in a way that is not legally persuasive (or accurate, in my view).

‘Tolerance’ of third country economic operators’ participation must engage legal protection under the CFR

Moreover, the Kolin Opinion would open a very dangerous path in terms of rule of law and upholding the effectiveness of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, especially Articles 41 and 47—and allow contracting authorities two bites of the cherry in relation to tenders submitted by economic operators from non-covered third countries. Contracting authorities could ‘tolerate’ participation of non-covered third country economic operators to see if those are the ones providing the most economically advantageous offer and, if not, or if other (industrial policy) considerations kicked in, they could simply reject or set aside the tender. This would happen in a context of insufficient guarantees.

Even assuming there was an obligation to exclude under Art 43 of Directive 2014/28/EU or Art 25 of Directive 2014/24/EU, which there is not, contracting authorities would be bound by the duties under Art 41 CFR in relation to EU and covered third-country economic operators. The relevant duty would require an immediate exclusion of the not covered economic operators to protect the (in that case) participation rights of those covered. A contracting authority that had not carried out such exclusion could seek to benefit from the advantages provided by the third country economic operator in breach of its duties, which is not permissible.

Conversely, a contracting authority that had not discharged its duty to exclude would be allowed to still benefit from its inaction by discriminating against and eventually excluding at a later stage the tender of the third-country economic operator without the latter having legal recourse. This would also not be in line with the effectiveness of Arts 41 and 47 CFR and certainly not in line with the doctrine of legitimate expectations. Once an economic operator or tenderer is not excluded or rejected at the first opportunity, there is a positive and very specific representation made by the contracting authority that the economic operator and/or its tender is in the run for the contract. This must trigger legal protection—although the specific form is likely to depend on domestic administrative law.

In the case at hand, like in many other cases in daily practice, despite Kolin not being eligible for equal treatment under Art 43 of Directive 2014/24/EU—and thus not having an enforceable right to participate in the tender and to equal treatment within it deriving from international law—the contracting authority had ‘tolerated’ its participation. The Opinion is plain that, following the receipt of tenders, the contracting authority ‘concluded that 6 out of the 15 tenders submitted fulfilled the selection criteria. [Kolin], a company established in Türkiye, submitted one of the tenders selected’ (para 16). However, the Opinion does not grant Kolin any rights because of such tolerance.

Contrary to the view held by AG Collins, ‘The Austrian Government contends that, although, in principle, Directive 2014/25 does not apply to economic operators from non-covered third-countries, such operators may rely on that directive once a contracting authority has permitted their participation in a procedure for the award of a public contract award’ (para 26). I share this view. Crucially, this is not an issue the Opinion explicitly addresses. But this is the main reason why the ECJ should not follow the Opinion.

The principle of competition is dead. Long live the principle of competition (Free webinar)

Free webinar: 22 March 2024 *revised time* 1pm UK / 2pm CET / 3pm EET. Registration here.

The role of competition in public procurement regulation continues to be debated. While it is generally accepted that the proper functioning of procurement markets requires some level of competition – and the European Court of Auditors has recently pointed out that current levels of competition for public contracts in the EU are not satisfactory – the 'legal ranking' and normative weight of competition concerns are much less settled.

This has been evidenced in a recent wave of academic discussion on whether there is a general principle of competition at all in Directive 2014/24/EU, what is its normative status and how it ranks vis-à-vis sustainability and environmental considerations, and what are its practical implications for the interpretation and application of EU public procurement law.

Bringing together voices representing a wide range of views, this webinar will explore these issues and provide a space for reflective discussion on competition and public procurement. The webinar won't settle the debate, but hopefully it will allow us to take stock and outline thoughts for the next wave of discussion. It will also provide an opportunity for an interactive Q&A.

Speakers:

  • Prof Roberto Caranta, Full Professor of Administrative Law, University of Turin.

  • Mr Trygve Harlem Losnedahl, PhD researcher, University of Oslo.

  • Dr Dagne Sabockis, Senior Associate, Vinge law firm; Stockholm School of Economics.

  • Prof Albert Sanchez-Graells, Professor of Economic Law, University of Bristol.

Pre- or post-reading:

Public Procurement of Artificial Intelligence: recent developments and remaining challenges in EU law

Now that the (more than likely) final of the EU AI Act is available, and building on the analysis of my now officially published new monograph Digital Technologies and Public Procurement (OUP 2024), I have put together my assessment of its impact for the procurement of AI under EU law and uploaded on SSRN the new paper: ‘Public Procurement of Artificial Intelligence: recent developments and remaining challenges in EU law’. The abstract is as follows:

EU Member States are increasingly experimenting with Artificial Intelligence (AI), but the acquisition and deployment of AI by the public sector is currently largely unregulated. This puts public procurement in the awkward position of a regulatory gatekeeper—a role it cannot effectively carry out. This article provides an overview of recent EU developments on the public procurement of AI. It reflects on the narrow scope of application and questionable effectiveness of tools linked to the EU AI Act, such as technical standards or model contractual clauses, and highlights broader challenges in the use of procurement law and practice to regulate the adoption and use of ‘trustworthy’ AI by the public sector. The paper stresses the need for an alternative regulatory approach.

The paper can be freely downloaded: A Sanchez-Graells, ‘Public Procurement of Artificial Intelligence: recent developments and remaining challenges in EU law’ (January 25, 2024). To be published in LTZ (Legal Tech Journal) 2/2024: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4706400.

As this will be an area of contention and continuous developments, comments most welcome!

Source: h

Responsibly Buying Artificial Intelligence: A Regulatory Hallucination?

I look forward to delivering the lecture ‘Responsibly Buying Artificial Intelligence: A Regulatory Hallucination?’ as part of the Current Legal Problems Lecture Series 2023-24 organised by UCL Laws. The lecture will be this Thursday 23 November 2023 at 6pm GMT and you can still register to participate (either online or in person). These are the slides I will be using, in case you want to take a sneak peek. I will post a draft version of the paper after the lecture. Comments welcome!

Public procurement (entry for an Encyclopaedia)

I was invited to provide an entry on ‘public procurement’ for the forthcoming Elgar Encyclopedia of European Law co-edited by Andrea Biondi and Oana Stefan. I must say I struggled to decide what to write about, as the entry was limited to 4,000 words and there are so many (!!) things going on in procurement. Below is my draft entry with perhaps an eclectic choice of content. Comments most welcome!

The draft entry is also available on SSRN if you prefer a pdf version: A Sanchez-Graells, ‘Public procurement’ in A Biondi and O Stefan, Elgar Encyclopedia of European Law (forthcoming) available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=4621399.

Public Procurement

I. Introduction

From up close, public procurement law can be seen as the set of mostly procedural rules controlling the way in which the public sector buys goods, services, and works from the market. Procurement would thus be a set of administrative law requirements concerned with the design and advertisement of tenders for public contracts, the decision-making process leading to the award of those contracts, and the advertisement and potential challenge of such decisions. To a more limited extent, some requirements would extend to the contract execution phase, and control in particular the modification and eventual termination of public contracts. From this narrow perspective, procurement would be primarily concerned with ensuring the integrity and probity of decision-making processes involving the management of public funds, as well as fostering the generation of value for money through effective reliance on competition for public contracts.

The importance and positive contribution of public procurement law to the adequate management of public funds may seem difficult to appreciate in ordinary times, and there are recurrent calls for a reduction of the administrative burden and bureaucracy related to procurement procedures, checks and balances. However, as the pervasive abuses of direct awards under the emergency conditions generated by the covid pandemic evidenced in virtually all jurisdictions, dispensing with those requirements, checks and balances comes with a very high price tag for taxpayers in terms of corruption, favouritism, and wastage of public funds.

Even from this relatively narrow perspective of procurement as a process-based mechanism of public governance, procurement attracts a significant amount of attention from EU legislators and from the EU Courts and is an area of crucial importance in the development of the European administrative space. As procurement regulation has been developed through successive generations of directives, and as many Member States had long traditions on the regulation of public procurement prior to the emergence of EU law on the topic, procurement offers a fertile ground for comparative public law scholarship. More recently, as EU procurement policy increasingly seeks to promote cross-border collaboration, procurement is also becoming a driver (or an irritant) for the transnational regulation of administrative processes and a living lab for experimentation and legal innovation.

From a slightly broader perspective, public procurement can be seen as a tool for the self-organisation of the State and as a primary conduit for the privatisation and outsourcing of State functions. A decision preceding procurement concerns the size and shape of the State, especially in relation to which functions and activities the State carries out in-house (including through public-public collaboration mechanisms), and which other are contracted out to the market (‘make or buy’ decisions). Procurement then controls the design and award of contracts involving the exercise of public powers, or the direct provision of public services to citizens where market agents are called upon to do so (including in the context of quasi-markets). Procurement thus heavily influences the interaction between the State’s contractual agents and citizens, and becomes a tool for the regulation of public service delivery. The more the State relies on markets for the provision of public services, the larger the potential influence (both positive and negative) of procurement mechanisms on citizens’ experience of their (indirect) interaction with the State. On this view, procurement is a tool of public governance and a conduit for public-private cooperation, as well as a regulatory mechanism for delegated public-public and public-private interactions. From this perspective, procurement is often seen as a neoliberal tool closely linked to new public management (NPM), although it should be stressed that procurement rules only activate once the decision to resort to contracting out or outsourcing has been made, as EU law does not mandate ‘going to market’.

From an even broader perspective, public procurement represents a more complex and multi-layered regulatory instrument. Given the enormous amounts of public funds channelled through public procurement, and the market-shaping effects that can follow from the exercise of such buying power, procurement regulation is often used as a lever for the promotion of policies and goals well beyond the narrower confines of procurement as a regulated administrative process. In the EU, procurement has always been an instrument of internal market regulation and sought to dismantle barriers to cross-border competition for the award of public contracts. More recently, and in line with developments in other jurisdictions, procurement has been increasingly singled out as a tool to promote environmental and sustainability goals, as well as social goals, or as a tool to foster innovation. Procurement is also increasingly identified as a tool to foster compliance with human rights along increasingly complex supply chains, or to address social inequality, such as through gender responsive procurement. In the face of the challenges posed by the mainstreaming of digital technologies, and artificial intelligence in particular, procurement is also increasingly identified as a tool of digital regulation. And, against the background of rule of law challenges within the EU, procurement conditionality has added to the fiscal control effect traditionally linked to the use of EU funds to subsidise procurement projects at Member State level. From this perspective, procurement is either an enforcement (or reinforcement) mechanism, or a self-standing regulatory tool for the pursuit of an increasingly diverse array of horizontal policies seeking to steer market activities.

Relatedly, given the importance of procurement as an economic activity, its regulation is of crucial importance in the context of industrial and trade policies. The interaction between procurement and industrial policy is not entirely straightforward, and neither is the position of procurement in the context of trade liberalisation. While there have been waves of policy efforts seeking to minimise the use of procurement for industrial policy purposes (ie the award of public contracts to national champions), in particular given the State aid implications of such uses of public contracts under EU law, and while there is a general push for the liberalisation of international trade through procurement—there are also periodic waves of protectionism where procurement is used as a tool of international economic regulation or, more broadly, geopolitics. Most recently, the EU has aggressively (re)regulated access to its procurement markets on grounds of such considerations.

It would be impossible to address all the issues that arise from the regulation of public procurement in all these (and other potential) dimensions within a single entry. Here, I will touch upon some the issues highlighted by recent developments in EU law and policy, and in relation to contemporary debates around the salient grand challenges encapsulated in the need for procurement to support the ‘twin transition’ to green and digital. I will not focus on the detail of procurement rules, which is better left to in-depth analysis (eg Arrowsmith [2014] and [2018], Steinicke and Vesterdorf [2018], or Caranta and Sanchez-Graells [2021]). There are a few common threats in the developments discussed below, especially in relation to the increasing complexity of procurement policymaking and administration, or the crucial role of expertise and capability, as well as some challenges in coordinating them in a way that generates meaningful outcomes. I will briefly return to these issues in the conclusion.

II. Procurement, Trade, and Geopolitics

A constant tension in the regulation of procurement concerns the openness of procurement markets. On the one hand, procurement can be a catalyst for trade liberalisation and there are many economic advantages stemming from increased (international) competition for public contracts—as evidenced in the context of the World Trade Organisation Government Procurement Agreement (WTO GPA) (Georgopoulos et al [2017]). In the narrower context of the EU’s internal market, public procurement openness is taken to its logical extremes and barriers to cross-border tendering are systematically dismantled through legislation, such as the most recent 2014 Public Procurement Package, and its interpretation by the Court of Justice. While there is disparity in national practice, the (complete) openness of procurement markets in the EU tends to not only benefit EU tenderers, but also those of third countries, who tend to be treated equally with EU ‘domestic’ tenderers.

On the other hand, the same (international) competition that can bring economic advantages can also put pressure on (less competitive) domestic industries or create risks of uneven playing field—especially where (foreign national champion) tenderers are propped up by their States. In some industries and in relation to some critical infrastructure, the award of oftentimes large and sensitive public contracts to foreign undertakings also generates concerns around safety and sovereignty.

A mechanism to mediate this tension is to make procurement-related trade liberalisation conditional on reciprocity, which in turn leverages multilateral instruments such as the WTO GPA. This is an area where EU law has recently generated significant developments. After protracted negotiations, EU procurement law now comprises a set of three instruments seeking to rebalance the (complete) openness of EU procurement markets.

As a starting point, under EU law, only foreign economic operators covered by an existing international agreement (such as the WTO GPA, or bilateral or multilateral trade agreements concluded with the EU that include commitments on access to public procurement) are entitled to equal treatment. However, differential treatment or outright exclusion of economic operators not covered by such equal treatment obligation tends (or has historically tended to) be rare. This can be seen to weaken the hand of the European Commission in international negotiations, as EU procurement markets are de facto almost entirely open, regardless of the much more limited legal openness resulting from those international agreements.

To nudge contracting authorities to enforce differential treatment, in 2020, the European Commission issued guidance on the participation of third country bidders and goods in EU procurement markets, stressing the several ways in which public buyers could address concerns regarding unfair competitive advantages of foreign tenderers. This should be seen as a first step towards ramping up the ‘rebalancing’ of access to EU procurement markets, though it is a soft (law) step and one that would still hinge on coordinated decision-making by a very large number of public buyers making tender-by-tender decisions.

A second and crucial step was taken in 2022 with the adoption of the EU’s International Procurement Instrument (IPI), which empowers the European Commission to carry out investigations where there are concerns about measures or practices negatively affecting the access of EU businesses, goods and services to non-EU procurement markets and, eventually, to impose (centralised) IPI measures to restrict access to EU public procurement procedures for businesses, goods and services from the non-EU countries concerned. The main effect of the IPI can be expected to be twofold. Outwardly, the IPI will lead to the European Commission having ‘a stick’ to push for reciprocity in procurement liberalisation as a complement to ‘the carrot’ used to persuade more and more countries to enter into bilateral trade deals, or for them to join the WTO GPA. Internally, the IPI will allow the Commission to mandate Member States to implement the relevant restrictions or exclusions from the EU procurement markets in relation to the jurisdictions concerned. This is expected to address the issue of de facto openness beyond existing (international) legal requirements, and therefore galvanise the ability of the Commission to control access to ‘the EU procurement market’ and thus bolster its ability to use procurement reciprocity as a tool for trade liberalisation more effectively.

A third and final crucial step came with the adoption in 2023 of the Regulation on foreign subsidies distorting the internal market, which creates a mechanism for the control of potential foreign subsidies in tenders for contracts with an estimated value above EUR 250 million, and can also result in the imposition of (centralised) measures curving access to the relevant contracts by the beneficiaries of those foreign subsidies. This comes to somehow create an international functional equivalent to the State aid control in place for domestic tenders, as well as a mechanism for the EU to enforce international anti-dumping standards within its own jurisdiction.

This trend of evolution in EU public procurement regulation evidences that public buyers are increasingly constrained by geopolitical and international economic considerations administered by the European Commission in a centralised manner (Andhov and Kania [2023]). Whether this will create friction between the Commission and Member States, perhaps in relation to particularly critical or sensitive procurement projects, remains to be seen. In any case, this line of policy and legal developments generates increased complexity in the administration of procurement processes on a day-to-day basis, and will require public buyers to develop expertise in the assessment of the relevant trade-related instruments and associated documentation, which will be a theme in common with other developments discussed below.

III. Procurement and Sustainability

It is relatively uncontroversial that public expenditure has a crucial role to play in supporting (or driving) the transition towards a more sustainable economy, and most jurisdictions explicitly consider how to harness public expenditure to decarbonise their economy and achieve net zero targets—sometimes in the broader context of efforts to achieve interlinked sustainable development goals. However, the details on the specific sustainability goals to be pursued through procurement (as compared to other means of public finances, such as subsidies or tax incentives), and on how to design and implement sustainable procurement are more contested.

Green procurement has been a primary focus of EU public procurement policy for a long time now, and it has received even further increased attention in recent years, culminating in the attribution of a prominent role for the implementation of the EU’s Green Deal. EU procurement law has been increasingly permissive and facilitative of the inclusion of environmental considerations in procurement decision-making and the European Commission has developed sets of guidance and technical documentation that are kept under permanent review and update. Overall, EU procurement law offers a diverse toolkit for public buyers to embed sustainability requirements.

However, the uptake of green procurement is much lower than would be desirable and progress is very uneven across jurisdictions and in different sectors of the economy. There is a growing realisation that facilitative or permissive approaches will not result in the quick generalisation of sustainability concerns across procurement practice required to contribute to mitigating the devastating effects of climate change in a timely fashion, or with sufficient scale. Informational and skills barriers, difficult economic assessments and competing (political) priorities necessarily slow down the uptake of sustainable procurement. In this context, it seems clear that technical complexity in the administration of procurement on a day-to-day basis, and limited technical skills in relation to sustainability assessments, are the primary obstacle in the road to mainstreaming sustainable public procurement. It is hard for public buyers to identify the relevant sustainability requirements and to embed them in their decision-making, especially where the inclusion of such requirements is bound to be checked against its suitability, proportionality, and its effect on potential competition for the relevant public contract.

To overcome this obstacle, it seems clear that a more proactive or prescriptive approach is required and that sustainability requirements must be embedded in legislation that binds public buyers—so that their role becomes one of (reinforced) compliance assessment or indirect enforcement. The question that arises, and which reopens age old discussions, is whether such legislation should solely target public procurement (Janssen and Caranta [2023]) or rather be of general application across the economy (Halonen [2021]).

This controversy evidences different understandings of the role of procurement-specific legislation and different levels of concern with the partitioning of markets. While the passing of procurement-specific legislation could be easier and politically more palatable—as it would be perceived to ultimately impose the relevant burden on economic operators seeking to gain public business (and so embed a certain element of opt-in or balanced regulatory burden against the prospect of accessing public funds), and the cost would ultimately fall on public buyers as ‘responsible (sustainable) buyers’—it would partition markets and eg potentially prevent the generation of economies of scale where public demand is not majoritarian. Moreover, such market partitioning would raise entry barriers for entities new to bidding for public contracts, as well as facilitate the emergence of anticompetitive and collusive practices in the more concentrated and partly isolated from potential competition ‘public markets’ (Sanchez-Graells [2015]) in ways that general legislation would not. More generally, advances in mandating sustainable procurement could deactivate the pressure for developments in more general sustainability mandates, as policymakers could claim to already be doing significant efforts (in the narrow setting of procurement).

A narrow sectoral approach to legislating for public procurement only would probably also over-rely on the hopes that procurement practices can become best practices and thus disseminate themselves across the economy through some understanding of mimicking, or race to the top. This relates to discussions in other areas and to the broader expectation that procurement can be a trend setter and influence industry practice and standards. However, as the discussion on digitalisation will show, the direction of influence tends to be on reverse and there are very limited mechanisms to promote or force industry adaptation to procurement standards other than in relation to direct access to procurement.

IV. Procurement and the ‘Digital Transformation’ of the State

Another area of growing consensus is that public procurement has a key role to play in the ‘digital transformation’ of the State, as the process of digitalisation is bound to rely on the acquisition of technology from market providers to a large or sole extent (depending on each jurisdiction’s make or buy decisions). This can in turn facilitate the role of procurement as a tool of digital industrial policy, especially because procurement expenditure can be a way of ensuring demand for innovation, and because public sector technology adoption can be used as a domain for experimentation with new technologies and new forms of technology-enabled governance.

The European Union has set very high expectations in its Digital Agenda 2030, and the Commission has recently stressed that achieving them would require roughly doubling the predicted level of public procurement expenditure in digital technologies, and artificial intelligence (AI) in particular. It can thus be expected that the procurement of digital technologies will quickly gain practical importance even in jurisdictions that have been lagging so far.

However, echoing some of the issues concerning sustainable procurement, in this second stream of the ‘twin transition’, the uptake of procurement of digital technologies is slowed down by the complexity of procuring unregulated immature technologies, and the (digital) skills gaps in the public sector—which are exacerbated by the absence of a toolkit of regulatory and practical resources equivalent to that of green procurement. In such a context of technological fluidity and hype, given the skills and power imbalances between technology providers and public buyers, the shortcomings of the use of public procurement as a regulatory mechanism become stark and the flaws in the logic or expectation that procurement can be an effective tool of market steering are laid bare (Sanchez-Graells [2024]).

Public buyers are expected to act as responsible AI buyers and to ensure the ‘responsible use of AI’ in the public sector. The EU AI Act will soon establish specific requirements in that regard, although solely in relation to high-risk AI uses as defined therein. Implementing the requirements of the EU AI Act—and their extension to other types of uses of digital technology or algorithms as a matter of ‘best practice’—will leverage procurement processes and, in particular, the ensuing public contracts to impose the relevant obligations on technology providers. In that connection, the European Commission has promoted the development of model contractual AI clauses that seek to regulate the technology to be procured and their future use by the relevant public sector deployer.

However, an analysis of the model clauses and broader guidance on the procurement of AI shows that public buyers will still face a very steep knowledge gap as it will be difficult to set the detail of the relevant contracts, which will tend to be highly context dependent. In other words, the model clauses are not ‘plug and play’ and implementing meaningful safeguards in the procurement and use of AI and other digital technologies will require advanced digital skills and sufficient commercial leverage—which are not to be taken as a given. Crucially, all obligations under the model clauses (and the EU AI Act itself) hinge on (self-assessment) processes controlled by the technology provider and/or refer back to technical standards or the state-of-the-art, which are driven and heavily influenced (or entirely controlled) by the technology industry. Public buyers are at a significant disadvantage not only to set, but also to monitor compliance with relevant requirements.

This shows that, in the absence of mandatory requirements and binding (general) legislation, the use of procurement for regulatory purposes has a high risk of commercial determination and regulatory tunnelling as public buyers with limited skills and capabilities struggle to impose requirements on technology providers, and where references to standards also displace regulatory decision-making. This means that public procurement can no longer be expected to ‘monitor itself’, and that new forms of institutional oversight are required to ensure that the procurement of digital technologies works in the broader public interest.

V. Conclusion

Although the issues discussed above may seem rather disparate, they share a few common threads. First, in all areas, the regulatory use of procurement generates complexity and makes the day-to-day administration of procurement processes more complex. It can be hard for a public buyer to navigate socio-political, sustainability and digitalisation concerns—and these are only some of the ‘non-strictly procurement-related’ concerns and considerations to be taken into account. Such difficulty can be compounded by limited capabilities and by gaps in the required skills. While this is particularly clear in the digital context, the issue of limited (technical) capability is also highly relevant in relation to sustainable procurement. An imbalance in skills and commercial leverage between the public buyer and technology providers undermines the logic of using procurement as a regulatory tool. Implementation issues thus require much further thought and investment than they currently receive.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of the regulatory goals underpinning the leveraging of procurement hinges on the ability of public buyers to meaningfully implement them. This raises the further question whether all goals can be achieved at the same time, especially where there can be difficult trade-offs. And there can be many of those. For example, it can well be that the offeror of the most attractive technology comes from a ‘black-listed’ jurisdiction. It can also be that the most attractive technology is also the most polluting, or one that raises significant other risks or harms from a social perspective, etc. Navigating these risks and making the (implicit) political choices may be too taxing a task for public buyers, as well as raise issues of democratic accountability more generally. Moreover, enabling public buyers to deal with these issues and to exercise judgement and discretion reopens the door to risks of eg bias, capture or corruption, as well as maladministration and error, which are some of the core concerns in the narrow approach to the regulation of procurement as an administrative procedure to being with. Those trade-offs are also pervasive and hard to assess.

It is difficult to foresee the future, but my intuition is that the trend of piling up of regulatory goals on procurement’s shoulders will need to slow down or reverse if it is meant to remain operational, and that a return to a more paired down understanding of the role of procurement will need to be enabled by the emergence of (generally applicable) legislation and external oversight mechanisms that can discharge procurement of these regulatory roles. Or, at least, that is the way I would like to see the broader regulation and policymaking around procurement to evolve.

Bibliography

Andhov, Marta and Michal Andrzej Kania, ‘Restricting Freedom of Contract – the EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation and its Consequences for Public Procurement’ (2023) Journal of Public Procurement.

Arrowsmith, Sue, The Law of Public and Utilities Procurement. Regulation in the EU and the UK, vols 1 & 2 (3rd edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2014 and 2018).

Caranta, Roberto and Albert Sanchez-Graells (eds), European Public Procurement. Commentary on Directive 2014/24/EU (Edward Elgar 2021).

Georgopoulos, Aris, Bernard Hoekman and Petros C Mavroidis (eds), The Internationalization of Government Procurement Regulation (OUP 2017).

Halonen, Kirsi-Maria, ‘Is public procurement fit for reaching sustainability goals? A law and economics approach to green public procurement’ (2021) 28(4) Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 535-555.

Janssen, Willem and Roberto Caranta (eds), Mandatory Sustainability Requirements in EU Public Procurement Law. Reflections on a Paradigm Shift (Hart 2023).

Sanchez-Graells, Albert, Public Procurement and the EU Competition rules (2nd end, Hart, 2015).

Sanchez-Graells, Albert, Digital Technologies and Public Procurement. Gatekeeping and Experimentation in Digital Public Governance (OUP 2024).

Steinicke, Michael and Peter L Vesterdorf (eds), Brussels Commentary on EU Public Procurement Law (C H Beck, Hart & Nomos 2018).

Innovation procurement under the Procurement Act 2023 -- changing procurement culture on the cheap?

On 13 November 2023, the UK Government published guidance setting out its ambitions for innovation procurement under the new Procurement Act 2023 (not yet in force, of which you can read a summary here). This further expands on the ambitions underpinning the Transforming Public Procurement project that started after Brexit. The Government’s expectation is that the ‘the new legislation will allow public procurement to be done in more flexible and innovative ways’, and that this will ‘enable public sector organisations to embrace innovation more’.

The innovation procurement guidance bases its expectation that the Procurement Act will unlock more procurement of innovation and more innovative procurement on the ambition that this will be an actively supported policy by all relevant policy- and decision-makers and that there will be advocacy for the development of commercial expertise. A first hurdle here is that unless such advocacy comes with the investment of significant funds in developing skills (and this relates to both commercial and technical skills, especially where the innovation relates to digital technologies), such high-level political buy-in may not translate into any meaningful changes. The guidance itself acknowledges that the ‘overall culture, expertise and incentive structure of the public sector has led to relatively low appetite for risk and experimentation’. Therefore, that greater investment in expertise needs to be coupled with a culture change. And we know this is a process that is very difficult to push forward.

The guidance also indicates that ‘Greater transparency of procurement data will make it easier to see what approaches have been successful and encourage use of those approaches more widely across the public sector.’ This potentially points to another hurdle in unlocking this policy because generic data is not enough to support innovation procurement or the procurement of innovation. Being able to successfully replicate innovation procurement practices requires a detailed understanding of how things were done, and how they need to be adapted when replicated. However, the new transparency regime does not necessarily guarantee that such granular and detailed information will be available, especially as the practical level of transparency that will stem from the new obligations crucially hinges on the treatment of commercially sensitive information (which is exempted from disclosure in s.94 PA 2023). Unless there is clear guidance on disclosure / withholding of sensitive commercial information, it can well be that the new regime does not generate additional meaningful (publicly accessible) data to push the knowledge stock and support innovative procurement. This is an important issue that may require further discussion in a separate post.

The guidance indicates that the changes in the Procurement Act will help public buyers in three ways:

  • ‘The new rules focus more on delivering outcomes (as opposed to ‘going through the motions’ of a rigid process). Contracting authorities will be able to design their own process, tailored to the unique circumstances of the requirement and, most importantly, those who are best placed to deliver the best solution.

  • There will be clearer rules overall and more flexibility for procurers to use their commercial skills to achieve the desired outcomes.

  • Procurers will be able to better communicate their particular problem to suppliers and work with them to come up with potential solutions. Using product demonstrations alongside written tenders will help buyers get a proper appreciation of solutions being offered by suppliers. That is particularly impactful for newer, more innovative solutions which the authority may not be familiar with.’

Although the guidance document indicates that the ‘new measures include general obligations, options for preliminary market engagement, and an important new mechanism, the Competitive Flexible Procedure’, in practice, there are limited changes to what was already allowed in terms of market consultation and the general obligations— to eg publish a pipeline notice (for contracting authorities with an annual spend over £100 million), or to ‘have regard to the fact that SMEs face barriers to participation and consider whether these barriers can be removed or reduced’—are also marginal (if at all) changes from the still current regime (see regs.48 and 46 PCR 2015). Therefore, it all boils down to the new ‘innovation-friendly procurement processes’ that are enabled by the flexible (under)regulation of the competitive flexible procedure (s.20 PA 2023).

The guidance stresses that the ‘objective is that the Competitive Flexible Procedure removes some of the existing barriers to procuring new and better solutions and gives contracting authorities freedom to enable them to achieve the best fit between the specific requirement and the best the market offers.’ The example provided in the guidance provides the skeleton structure of a 3-phase procedure involving an initial ideas and feasibility phase 1, an R&D and prototype phase 2 and a final tendering leading to the award of a production/service contract (phase 3). At this level of generality, there is little to distinguish this from a competitive dialogue under the current rules (reg.30 PCR 2015). Devil will be in the detail.

Moreover, as repeatedly highlighted from the initial consultations, the under-regulation of the competitive flexible procedure will raise the information costs and risks of engaging with innovation procurement as each new approach taken by a contracting authority will require significant investment of time in its design, as well as an unavoidable risk of challenge. The incentives are not particularly geared towards facilitating risk-taking. And any more detailed guidance on ‘how to'‘ carry out an innovative competitive flexible procedure will simply replace regulation and become a de facto standard through which contracting authorities may take the same ‘going through the motions’ approach as the process detailed in teh guidance rigidifies.

The guidance acknowledges this, at least partially, when it stresses that ‘Behavioural changes will make the biggest difference’. Such behavioural changes will be supported through training, which the guidance document also describes (and there is more detail here). The training offered will consist of:

  • Knowledge drops (open to everyone): An on-demand, watchable resource up to a maximum of 45 minutes in total, providing an overview of all of the changes in legislation.

  • E-learning (for skilled practitioners within the public sector only): a learning & development self-guided course consisting of ‘10 1-hour modules and concludes with a skilled practitioner certification’.

  • Advanced course deep dives (for public sector expert practitioners only): ‘3-day, interactive, instructor-led course. It consists of virtual ‘deep dive’ webinars, which allow learners to engage with subject matter experts. This level of interaction allows a deeper insight across the full spectrum of the legislative change and support ‘hearts and minds’ change amongst the learner population (creating ‘superusers’).’

  • Communities of practice (for skilled and expert practitioners only): ‘a system of collective critical inquiry and reflection into the regime changes. Supported by the central team and superusers, they will support individuals to embed what they have learned.’

As an educator and based on my experience of training expert professionals in complex procurement, I am skeptical that this amount of training can lead to meaningful changes. The 45-minute resource can hardly cover the entirety of changes in the Procurement Act, and even the 10 hour course for public buyers only will be quite limited in how far it can go. 3 days of training are also insufficient to go much further than exploring a few examples in meaningful detail. And this is relevant because that training is not only for innovation procurement, but for all types of ‘different’ procurement under the Procurement Act 2023 (ie green, social, more robustly anti-corruption, more focused on contract performance, etc). Shifting culture and practice would require a lot more than this.

It is also unclear why this (minimal) investment in public sector understanding of the procurement framework has not taken place earlier. As I already said in the consultation, all of this could have taken place years ago and a better understanding of the current regime would have led to improvements in the practice of innovative procurement in the UK.

All in all, it seems that the aspirations of more innovation procurement and more innovative procurement are pinned on a rather limited amount of training and in (largely voluntary, in addition to the day job) collaboration for super-user experienced practitioners (who will probably see their scarce skills in high demand). It is unclear to me how this will be a game changer. Especially as most of this (and in particular collaboration and voluntary knowledge exchange) could already take place. It may be that more structure and coordination will bring better outcomes, but this would require adequate and sufficient resourcing.

Whether there will be more innovation procurement then depends on whether more money will be put into procurement structures and support. From where I stand, this is by no means a given. I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

Thoughts on the AI Safety Summit from a public sector procurement & use of AI perspective

The UK Government hosted an AI Safety Summit on 1-2 November 2023. A summary of the targeted discussions in a set of 8 roundtables has been published for Day 1, as well as a set of Chair’s statements for Day 2, including considerations around safety testing, the state of the science, and a general summary of discussions. There is also, of course, the (flagship?) Bletchley Declaration, and an introduction to the announced AI Safety Institute (UK AISI).

In this post, I collect some of my thoughts on these outputs of the AI Safety Summit from the perspective of public sector procurement and use of AI.

What was said at the AI safety Summit?

Although the summit was narrowly targeted to discussion of ‘frontier AI’ as particularly advanced AI systems, some of the discussions seem to have involved issues also applicable to less advanced (ie currently in existence) AI systems, and even to non-AI algorithms used by the public sector. As the general summary reflects, ‘There was also substantive discussion of the impact of AI upon wider societal issues, and suggestions that such risks may themselves pose an urgent threat to democracy, human rights, and equality. Participants expressed a range of views as to which risks should be prioritised, noting that addressing frontier risks is not mutually exclusive from addressing existing AI risks and harms.’ Crucially, ‘participants across both days noted a range of current AI risks and harmful impacts, and reiterated the need for them to be tackled with the same energy, cross-disciplinary expertise, and urgency as risks at the frontier.’ Hopefully, then, some of the rather far-fetched discussions of future existential risks can be conducive to taking action on current harms and risks arising from the procurement and use of less advanced systems.

There seemed to be some recognition of the need for more State intervention through regulation, for more regulatory control of standard-setting, and for more attention to be paid to testing and evaluation in the procurement context. For example, the summary of Day 1 discussions indicates that participants agreed that

  • ‘We should invest in basic research, including in governments’ own systems. Public procurement is an opportunity to put into practice how we will evaluate and use technology.’ (Roundtable 4)

  • ‘Company policies are just the baseline and don’t replace the need for governments to set standards and regulate. In particular, standardised benchmarks will be required from trusted external third parties such as the recently announced UK and US AI Safety Institutes.’ (Roundtable 5)

In Day 2, in the context of safety testing, participants agreed that

  • Governments have a responsibility for the overall framework for AI in their countries, including in relation to standard setting. Governments recognise their increasing role for seeing that external evaluations are undertaken for frontier AI models developed within their countries in accordance with their locally applicable legal frameworks, working in collaboration with other governments with aligned interests and relevant capabilities as appropriate, and taking into account, where possible, any established international standards.

  • Governments plan, depending on their circumstances, to invest in public sector capability for testing and other safety research, including advancing the science of evaluating frontier AI models, and to work in partnership with the private sector and other relevant sectors, and other governments as appropriate to this end.

  • Governments will plan to collaborate with one another and promote consistent approaches in this effort, and to share the outcomes of these evaluations, where sharing can be done safely, securely and appropriately, with other countries where the frontier AI model will be deployed.

This could be a basis on which to build an international consensus on the need for more robust and decisive regulation of AI development and testing, as well as a consensus of the sets of considerations and constraints that should be applicable to the procurement and use of AI by the public sector in a way that is compliant with individual (human) rights and social interests. The general summary reflects that ‘Participants welcomed the exchange of ideas and evidence on current and upcoming initiatives, including individual countries’ efforts to utilise AI in public service delivery and elsewhere to improve human wellbeing. They also affirmed the need for the benefits of AI to be made widely available’.

However, some statements seem at first sight contradictory or problematic. While the excerpt above stresses that ‘Governments have a responsibility for the overall framework for AI in their countries, including in relation to standard setting’ (emphasis added), the general summary also stresses that ‘The UK and others recognised the importance of a global digital standards ecosystem which is open, transparent, multi-stakeholder and consensus-based and many standards bodies were noted, including the International Standards Organisation (ISO), International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and relevant study groups of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).’ Quite how State responsibility for standard setting fits with industry-led standard setting by such organisations is not only difficult to fathom, but also one of the potentially most problematic issues due to the risk of regulatory tunnelling that delegation of standard setting without a verification or certification mechanism entails.

Moreover, there seemed to be insufficient agreement around crucial issues, which are summarised as ‘a set of more ambitious policies to be returned to in future sessions’, including:

‘1. Multiple participants suggested that existing voluntary commitments would need to be put on a legal or regulatory footing in due course. There was agreement about the need to set common international standards for safety, which should be scientifically measurable.

2. It was suggested that there might be certain circumstances in which governments should apply the principle that models must be proven to be safe before they are deployed, with a presumption that they are otherwise dangerous. This principle could be applied to the current generation of models, or applied when certain capability thresholds were met. This would create certain ‘gates’ that a model had to pass through before it could be deployed.

3. It was suggested that governments should have a role in testing models not just pre- and post-deployment, but earlier in the lifecycle of the model, including early in training runs. There was a discussion about the ability of governments and companies to develop new tools to forecast the capabilities of models before they are trained.

4. The approach to safety should also consider the propensity for accidents and mistakes; governments could set standards relating to how often the machine could be allowed to fail or surprise, measured in an observable and reproducible way.

5. There was a discussion about the need for safety testing not just in the development of models, but in their deployment, since some risks would be contextual. For example, any AI used in critical infrastructure, or equivalent use cases, should have an infallible off-switch.

…

8. Finally, the participants also discussed the question of equity, and the need to make sure that the broadest spectrum was able to benefit from AI and was shielded from its harms.’

All of these are crucial considerations in relation to the regulation of AI development, (procurement) and use. A lack of consensus around these issues already indicates that there was a generic agreement that some regulation is necessary, but much more limited agreement on what regulation is necessary. This is clearly reflected in what was actually agreed at the summit.

What was agreed at the AI Safety Summit?

Despite all the discussions, little was actually agreed at the AI Safety Summit. The Blethcley Declaration includes a lengthy (but rather uncontroversial?) description of the potential benefits and actual risks of (frontier) AI, some rather generic agreement that ‘something needs to be done’ (eg welcoming ‘the recognition that the protection of human rights, transparency and explainability, fairness, accountability, regulation, safety, appropriate human oversight, ethics, bias mitigation, privacy and data protection needs to be addressed’) and very limited and unspecific commitments.

Indeed, signatories only ‘committed’ to a joint agenda, comprising:

  • ‘identifying AI safety risks of shared concern, building a shared scientific and evidence-based understanding of these risks, and sustaining that understanding as capabilities continue to increase, in the context of a wider global approach to understanding the impact of AI in our societies.

  • building respective risk-based policies across our countries to ensure safety in light of such risks, collaborating as appropriate while recognising our approaches may differ based on national circumstances and applicable legal frameworks. This includes, alongside increased transparency by private actors developing frontier AI capabilities, appropriate evaluation metrics, tools for safety testing, and developing relevant public sector capability and scientific research’ (emphases added).

This does not amount to much that would not happen anyway and, given that one of the UK Government’s objectives for the Summit was to create mechanisms for global collaboration (‘a forward process for international collaboration on frontier AI safety, including how best to support national and international frameworks’), this agreement for each jurisdiction to do things as they see fit in accordance to their own circumstances and collaborate ‘as appropriate’ in view of those seems like a very poor ‘win’.

In reality, there seems to be little coming out of the Summit other than a plan to continue the conversations in 2024. Given what had been said in one of the roundtables (num 5) in relation to the need to put in place adequate safeguards: ‘this work is urgent, and must be put in place in months, not years’; it looks like the ‘to be continued’ approach won’t do or, at least, cannot be claimed to have made much of a difference.

What did the UK Government promise in the AI Summit?

A more specific development announced with the occasion of the Summit (and overshadowed by the earlier US announcement) is that the UK will create the AI Safety Institute (UK AISI), a ‘state-backed organisation focused on advanced AI safety for the public interest. Its mission is to minimise surprise to the UK and humanity from rapid and unexpected advances in AI. It will work towards this by developing the sociotechnical infrastructure needed to understand the risks of advanced AI and enable its governance.’

Crucially, ‘The Institute will focus on the most advanced current AI capabilities and any future developments, aiming to ensure that the UK and the world are not caught off guard by progress at the frontier of AI in a field that is highly uncertain. It will consider open-source systems as well as those deployed with various forms of access controls. Both AI safety and security are in scope’ (emphasis added). This seems to carry forward the extremely narrow focus on ‘frontier AI’ and catastrophic risks that augured a failure of the Summit. It is also in clear contrast with the much more sensible and repeated assertions/consensus in that other types of AI cause very significant risks and that there is ‘a range of current AI risks and harmful impacts, and reiterated the need for them to be tackled with the same energy, cross-disciplinary expertise, and urgency as risks at the frontier.’

Also crucially, UK AISI ‘is not a regulator and will not determine government regulation. It will collaborate with existing organisations within government, academia, civil society, and the private sector to avoid duplication, ensuring that activity is both informing and complementing the UK’s regulatory approach to AI as set out in the AI Regulation white paper’.

According to initial plans, UK AISI ‘will initially perform 3 core functions:

  • Develop and conduct evaluations on advanced AI systems, aiming to characterise safety-relevant capabilities, understand the safety and security of systems, and assess their societal impacts

  • Drive foundational AI safety research, including through launching a range of exploratory research projects and convening external researchers

  • Facilitate information exchange, including by establishing – on a voluntary basis and subject to existing privacy and data regulation – clear information-sharing channels between the Institute and other national and international actors, such as policymakers, international partners, private companies, academia, civil society, and the broader public’

It is also stated that ‘We see a key role for government in providing external evaluations independent of commercial pressures and supporting greater standardisation and promotion of best practice in evaluation more broadly.’ However, the extent to which UK AISI will be able to do that will hinge on issues that are not currently clear (or publicly disclosed), such as the membership of UK AISI or its institutional set up (as ‘state-backed organisation’ does not say much about this).

On that very point, it is somewhat problematic that the UK AISI ‘is an evolution of the UK’s Frontier AI Taskforce. The Frontier AI Taskforce was announced by the Prime Minister and Technology Secretary in April 2023’ (ahem, as ‘Foundation Model Taskforce’—so this is the second rebranding of the same initiative in half a year). As is problematic that UK AISI ‘will continue the Taskforce’s safety research and evaluations. The other core parts of the Taskforce’s mission will remain in [the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology] as policy functions: identifying new uses for AI in the public sector; and strengthening the UK’s capabilities in AI.’ I find the retention of analysis pertaining to public sector AI use within government problematic and a clear indication of the UK’s Government unwillingness to put meaningful mechanisms in place to monitor the process of public sector digitalisation. UK AISI very much sounds like a research institute with a focus on a very narrow set of AI systems and with a remit that will hardly translate into relevant policymaking in areas in dire need of regulation. Finally, it is also very problematic that funding is not locked: ‘The Institute will be backed with a continuation of the Taskforce’s 2024 to 2025 funding as an annual amount for the rest of this decade, subject to it demonstrating the continued requirement for that level of public funds.’ In reality, this means that the Institute’s continued existence will depend on the Government’s satisfaction with its work and the direction of travel of its activities and outputs. This is not at all conducive to independence, in my view.

So, all in all, there is very little new in the announcement of the creation of the UK AISI and, while there is a (theoretical) possibility for the Institute to make a positive contribution to regulating AI procurement and use (in the public sector), this seems extremely remote and potentially undermined by the Institute’s institutional set up. This is probably in stark contrast with the US approach the UK is trying to mimic (though more on the US approach in a future entry).

AI in the public sector: can procurement promote trustworthy AI and avoid commercial capture?

The recording and slides of the public lecture on ‘AI in the public sector: can procurement promote trustworthy AI and avoid commercial capture?’ I gave at the University of Bristol Law School on 4 July 2023 are now available. As always, any further comments most warmly received at: a.sanchez-graells@bristol.ac.uk.

This lecture brought my research project to an end. I will now focus on finalising the manuscript and sending it off to the publisher, and then take a break for the rest of the summer. I will share details of the forthcoming monograph in a few months. I hope to restart blogging in September. in the meantime, I wish all HTCaN friends all the best. Albert

Two policy briefings on digital technologies and procurement

Now that my research project ‘Digital technologies and public procurement. Gatekeeping and experimentation in digital public governance’ nears its end, some outputs start to emerge. In this post, I would like to highlight two policy briefings summarising some of my top-level policy recommendations, and providing links to more detailed analysis. All materials are available in the ‘Digital Procurement Governance’ tab.

Policy Briefing 1: ‘Guaranteeing public sector adoption of trustworthy AI - a task that should not be left to procurement’

"Can Procurement Be Used to Effectively Regulate AI?" [recording]

The recording and slides for yesterday’s webinar on ‘Can Procurement Be Used to Effectively Regulate AI?’ co-hosted by the University of Bristol Law School and the GW Law Government Procurement Programme are now available for catch up if you missed it.

I would like to thank once again Dean Jessica Tillipman (GW Law), Dr Aris Georgopoulos (Nottingham), Elizabeth "Liz" Chirico (Acquisition Innovation Lead at Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army - Procurement) and Scott Simpson (Digital Transformation Lead, Department of Homeland Security Office of the Chief Procurement Officer - Procurement Innovation Lab) for really interesting discussion, and to all participants for their questions. Comments most welcome, as always.

Testing the limits of ChatGPT’s procurement knowledge (and stubbornness) – guest post by Džeina Gaile

Following up on the discussion whether public sector use of ChatGPT should be banned, in this post, Džeina Gaile* shares an interesting (and at points unnerving) personal experiment with the tool. Džeina asked a few easy questions on the topic of her PhD research (tender clarifications).

The answers – and the ‘hallucinations’, that is, the glaring mistakes – and the tone are worth paying attention to. I find the bit of the conversation on the very existence of Article 56 and the content of Article 56(3) Directive 2014/24/EU particularly (ahem) illuminating. Happy reading!

PS. If you take Džeina up on her provocation and run your own procurement experiment on ChatGPT (or equivalent), I will be delighted to publish it here as well.

Liar, liar, pants on fire – what ChatGPT did not teach me
about my own PhD research topic

 DISCLAIMER: The views provided here are just a result of an experiment by some random procurement expert that is not a specialist in IT law or any other AI-related law field.

If we consider law as a form of art, as lawyers, words are our main instrument. Therefore, we have a special respect for language as well as the facts that our words represent. We know the liability that comes with the use of the wrong words. One problem with ChatGPT is - it doesn't. 

This brings us to an experiment that could be performed by anyone having at least basic knowledge of the internet and some in-depth knowledge in some specific field, or at least an idea of the information that could be tested on the web. What can you do? Ask ChatGPT (or equivalent) some questions you already know the answers to. It would be nice if the (expected) answers include some facts, numbers, or people you can find on Google. Just remember to double-check everything. And see how it goes.

My experiment was performed on May 3rd, 4th and 17th, 2023, mostly in the midst of yet another evening spent trying to do something PhD related. (As you may know, the status of student upgrades your procrastination skills to a level you never even knew before, despite your age. That is how this article came about).

I asked ChatGPT a few questions on my research topic for fun and possible insights. At the end of this article, you can see quite long excerpts from our conversation, where you will find that maybe you can get the right information (after being very persuasive with your questions!), but not always, as in the case of the May 4th and 17th interactions. And you can get very many apologies during that (if you are into that).[1]

However, such a need for persuasion oughtn’t be necessary if the information is relatively easy to find, since, well, we all have used Google and it already knows how to find things. Also, you can call the answers given on May 4th and 17th misleading, or even pure lies. This, consequently, casts doubt on any information that is provided by this tool (at least, at this moment), if we follow the human logic that simpler things (such as finding the right article or paragraph in law) are easier done than complex things (such as giving an opinion on difficult legal issues). As can be seen from the chat, we don’t even know what ChatGPT’s true sources are and how it actually works when it tells you something that is not true (while still presenting it as a fact). 

Maybe some magic words like “as far as I know” or “prima facie” in the answers could have provided me with more empathy regarding my chatty friend. The total certainty with which the information is provided also gives further reasons for concern. What if I am a normal human being and don’t know the real answer, have forgotten or not noticed the disclaimer at the bottom of the chat (as it happens with the small letter texts), or don’t have any persistence to check the info? I may include the answers in my homework, essay, or even in my views on the issue at work—since, as you know, we are short of time and need everything done by yesterday. The path of least resistance is one of the most tempting. (And in the case of AI we should be aware of a thing inherent to humans called “anthropomorphizing”, i.e., attributing human form or personality to things not human, so we might trust something a bit more or more easily than we should.)

The reliability of the information provided by State institutions as well as lawyers has been one of the cornerstones of people’s belief in the justice system. Therefore, it could be concluded that either I had bad luck, or one should be very careful when introducing AI in state institutions. And such use should be limited only to cases where only information about facts is provided (with the possibility to see and check the resources) until the credibility of AI opinions could be reviewed and verified. At this moment you should believe the disclaimers of its creators and use AI resources with quite (legitimate) mistrust and treat it somewhat as a child that has done something wrong but will not admit it, no matter how long you interrogate them. And don’t take it for something it is not, even if it sounds like you should listen to it.**

May 3rd, 2023

[Reminder: Article 56(3) of the Directive 2014/24/EU: Where information or documentation to be submitted by economic operators is or appears to be incomplete or erroneous or where specific documents are missing, contracting authorities may, unless otherwise provided by the national law implementing this Directive, request the economic operators concerned to submit, supplement, clarify or complete the relevant information or documentation within an appropriate time limit, provided that such requests are made in full compliance with the principles of equal treatment and transparency.]

[...]

[… a quite lengthy discussion about the discretion of the contracting authority to ask for the information ...]

[The author did not get into a discussion about the opinion of ChatGPT on this issue, because that was not the aim of the chat, however, this could be done in some other conversation.]

[…]

[… long explanation ...]

[...]

May 4th, 2023

[Editor’s note: apologies that some of the screenshots appear in a small font…].

[…]

Both links that the ChatGPT gave are correct:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014L0024

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0024&from=EN

However, both citations are wrong.

May 17th, 2023

[As you will see, ChatGPT doesn’t give links anymore, so it could have learned a bit within these few weeks].

[Editor’s note: apologies again that the remainder of the screenshots appear in a small font…].

[...]

[Not to be continued.]

DŽEINA GAILE

My name is Džeina Gaile and I am a doctoral student at the University of Latvia. My research focuses on clarification of a submitted tender, but I am interested in many aspects of public procurement. Therefore, I am supplementing my knowledge as often as I can and have a Master of Laws in Public Procurement Law and Policy with Distinction from the University of Nottingham. I also have been practicing procurement and am working as a lawyer for a contracting authority. In a few words, a bit of a “procurement geek”. In my free time, I enjoy walks with my dog, concerts, and social dancing.

________________

** This article was reviewed by Grammarly. Still, I hope it will not tell anything to the ChatGPT… [Editor’s note – the draft was then further reviewed by a human, yours truly].

[1] To be fair, I must stress that at the bottom of the chat page, there is a disclaimer: “Free Research Preview. ChatGPT may produce inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. ChatGPT May 3 Version” or “Free Research Preview. ChatGPT may produce inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. ChatGPT May 12 Version” later. And, when you join the tool, there are several announcements that this is a work in progress.


Free registration open for two events on procurement and artificial intelligence

Registration is now open for two free events on procurement and artificial intelligence (AI).

First, a webinar where I will be participating in discussions on the role of procurement in contributing to the public sector’s acquisition of trustworthy AI, and the associated challenges, from an EU and US perspective.

Second, a public lecture where I will present the findings of my research project on digital technologies and public procurement.

Please scroll down for details and links to registration pages. All welcome!

1. ‘Can Procurement Be Used to Effectively Regulate AI?’ | Free online webinar
30 May 2023 2pm BST / 3pm CET-SAST / 9am EST (90 mins)
Co-organised by University of Bristol Law School and George Washington University Law School.

Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) regulation and governance is a global challenge that is starting to generate different responses in the EU, US, and other jurisdictions. Such responses are, however, rather tentative and politically contested. A full regulatory system will take time to crystallise and be fully operational. In the meantime, despite this regulatory gap, the public sector is quickly adopting AI solutions for a wide range of activities and public services.

This process of accelerated AI adoption by the public sector places procurement as the (involuntary) gatekeeper, tasked with ‘AI regulation by contract’, at least for now. The procurement function is expected to design tender procedures and contracts capable of attaining goals of AI regulation (such as trustworthiness, explainability, or compliance with data protection and human and fundamental rights) that are so far eluding more general regulation.

This webinar will provide an opportunity to take a hard look at the likely effectiveness of AI regulation by contract through procurement and its implications for the commercialisation of public governance, focusing on key issues such as:

  • The interaction between tender design, technical standards, and negotiations.

  • The challenges of designing, monitoring, and enforcing contractual clauses capable of delivering effective ‘regulation by contract’ in the AI space.

  • The tension between the commercial value of tailored contractual design and the regulatory value of default clauses and standard terms.

  • The role of procurement disputes and litigation in shaping AI regulation by contract.

  • The alternative regulatory option of establishing mandatory prior approval by an independent regulator of projects involving AI adoption by the public sector.

This webinar will be of interest to those working on or researching the digitalisation of the public sector and AI regulation in general, as the discussion around procurement gatekeeping mirrors the main issues arising from broader trends.

I will have the great opportunity of discussing my research with Aris Georgopoulos (Nottingham), Scott Simpson (Digital Transformation Lead at U.S. Department of Homeland Security), and Liz Chirico (Acquisition Innovation Lead at Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army). Jessica Tillipman (GW Law) will moderate the discussion and Q&A.

Registration: https://law-gwu-edu.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_w_V9s_liSiKrLX9N-krrWQ.

2. ‘AI in the public sector: can procurement promote trustworthy AI and avoid commercial capture?’ | Free in-person public lecture
4 July 2023 2pm BST, Reception Room, Wills Memorial Building, University of Bristol
Organised by University of Bristol Law School, Centre for Global Law and Innovation

The public sector is quickly adopting artificial intelligence (AI) to manage its interactions with citizens and in the provision of public services – for example, using chatbots in official websites, automated processes and call-centres, or predictive algorithms.

There are inherent high stakes risks to this process of public governance digitalisation, such as bias and discrimination, unethical deployment, data and privacy risks, cyber security risks, or risks of technological debt and dependency on proprietary solutions developed by (big) tech companies.

However, as part of the UK Government’s ‘light touch’ ‘pro-innovation’ approach to digital technology regulation, the adoption of AI in the public sector remains largely unregulated. 

In this public lecture, I will present the findings of my research funded by the British Academy, analysing how, in this deregulatory context, the existing rules on public procurement fall short of protecting the public interest.

An alternative approach is required to create mechanisms of external independent oversight and mandatory standards to embed trustworthy AI requirements and to mitigate against commercial capture in the acquisition of AI solutions. 

Registration: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/can-procurement-promote-trustworthy-ai-and-avoid-commercial-capture-tickets-601212712407.

Procuring AI without understanding it. Way to go?

The UK’s Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum (DRCF) has published a report on Transparency in the procurement of algorithmic systems (for short, the ‘AI procurement report’). Some of DRCF’s findings in the AI procurement report are astonishing, and should attract significant attention. The one finding that should definitely not go unnoticed is that, according to DRCF, ‘Buyers can lack the technical expertise to effectively scrutinise the [algorithmic systems] they are procuring, whilst vendors may limit the information they share with buyers’ (at 9). While this is not surprising, the ‘normality’ with which this finding is reported evidences the simple fact that, at least in the UK, it is accepted that the AI field is dominated by technology providers, that all institutional buyers are ‘AI consumers’, and that regulators do not seem to see a need to intervene to rebalance the situation.

The report is not specifically about public procurement of AI, but its content is relevant to assessing the conditions surrounding the acquisition of AI by the public sector. First, the report covers algorithmic systems other than AI—that is, automation based on simpler statistical techniques—but the issues it raises can only be more acute in relation to AI than in relation to simpler algorithmic systems (as the report itself highlights, at 9). Second, the report does not make explicit whether the mix of buyers from which it draws evidence includes public as well as private buyers. However, given the public sector’s digital skills gap, there is no reason to believe that the limited knowledge and asymmetries of information documented in the AI procurement report are less acute for public buyers than private buyers.

Moreover, the AI procurement report goes as far as to suggest that public sector procurement is somewhat in a better position than private sector procurement of AI because there are multiple guidelines focusing on public procurement (notably, the Guidelines for AI procurement). Given the shortcomings in those guidelines (see here for earlier analysis), this can hardly provide any comfort.

The AI procurement report evidences that UK (public and private) buyers are procuring AI they do not understand and cannot adequately monitor. This is extremely worrying. The AI procurement report presents evidence gathered by DRCF in two workshops with 23 vendors and buyers of algorithmic systems in Autumn 2022. The evidence base is qualitative and draws from a limited sample, so it may need to be approached with caution. However, its findings are sufficiently worrying as to require a much more robust policy intervention that the proposals in the recently released White Paper ‘AI regulation: a pro-innovation approach’ (for discussion, see here). In this blog post, I summarise the findings of the AI procurement report I find more problematic and link this evidence to the failing attempt at using public procurement to regulate the acquisition of AI by the public sector in the UK.

Misinformed buyers with limited knowledge and no ability to oversee

In its report, DRCF stresses that ‘some buyers lacked understanding of [algorithmic systems] and could struggle to recognise where an algorithmic process had been integrated into a system they were procuring’, and that ‘[t]his issue may be compounded where vendors fail to note that a solution includes AI or its subset, [machine learning]’ (at 9). The report goes on to stress that ‘[w]here buyers have insufficient information about the development or testing of an [algorithmic system], there is a risk that buyers could be deploying an [algorithmic system] that is unlawful or unethical. This risk is particularly acute for high-risk applications of [algorithmic systems], for example where an [algorithmic system] determines a person's access to employment or housing or where the application is in a highly regulated sector such as finance’ (at 10). Needless to say, however, this applies to a much larger set of public sector areas of activity, and the problems are not limited to high-risk applications involving individual rights, but also to those that involve high stakes from a public governance perspective.

Similarly, DRCF stresses that while ‘vendors use a range of performance metrics and testing methods … without appropriate technical expertise or scrutiny, these metrics may give buyers an incomplete picture of the effectiveness of an [algorithmic system]’; ‘vendors [can] share performance metrics that overstate the effectiveness of their [algorithmic system], whilst omitting other metrics which indicate lower effectiveness in other areas. Some vendors raised concerns that their competitors choose the most favourable (i.e., the highest) performance metric to win procurement contracts‘, while ‘not all buyers may have the technical knowledge to understand which performance metrics are most relevant to their procurement decision’ (at 10). This demolishes any hope that buyers facing this type of knowledge gap and asymmetry of information can compare algorithmic systems in a meaningful way.

The issue is further compounded by the lack of standards and metrics. The report stresses this issue: ‘common or standard metrics do not yet exist within industry for the evaluation of [algorithmic systems]. For vendors, this can make it more challenging to provide useful information, and for buyers, this lack of consistency can make it difficult to compare different [algorithmic systems]. Buyers also told us that they would find more detail on the performance of the [algorithmic system] being procured helpful - including across a range of metrics. The development of more consistent performance metrics could also help regulators to better understand how accurate an [algorithmic system] is in a specific context’ (at 11).

Finally, the report also stresses that vendors have every incentive to withhold information from buyers, both because ‘sharing too much technical detail or knowledge could allow buyers to re-develop their product’ and because ‘they remain concerned about revealing commercially sensitive information to buyers’ (at 10). In that context, given the limited knowledge and understanding documented above, it can even be difficult for a buyer to ascertain which information it has not been given.

The DRCF AI procurement report then focuses on mechanisms that could alleviate some of the issues it identifies, such as standardisation, certification and audit mechanisms, as well as AI transparency registers. However, these mechanisms raise significant questions, not only in relation to their practical implementation, but also regarding the continued reliance on the AI industry (and thus, AI vendors) for the development of some of its foundational elements—and crucially, standards and metrics. To a large extent, the AI industry would be setting the benchmark against which their processes, practices and performance is to be measured. Even if a third party is to carry out such benchmarking or compliance analysis in the context of AI audits, the cards can already be stacked against buyers.

Not the way forward for the public sector (in the UK)

The DRCF AI procurement report should give pause to anyone hoping that (public) buyers can drive the process of development and adoption of these technologies. The AI procurement report clearly evidences that buyers with knowledge disadvantages and information asymmetries are at the merci of technology providers—and/or third-party certifiers (in the future). The evidence in the report clearly suggests that this a process driven by technology providers and, more worryingly, that (most) buyers are in no position to critically assess and discipline vendor behaviour.

The question arises why would any buyer acquire and deploy a technology it does not understand and is in no position to adequately assess. But the hype and hard-selling surrounding AI, coupled with its abstract potential to generate significant administrative and operational advantages seem to be too hard to resist, both for private sector entities seeking to gain an edge (or at least not lag behind competitors) in their markets, and by public sector entities faced with AI’s policy irresistibility.

In the public procurement context, the insights from DRCF’s AI procurement report stress that the fundamental imbalance between buyers and vendors of digital technologies undermines the regulatory role that public procurement is expected to play. Only a buyer that had equal or superior technical ability and that managed to force full disclosure of the relevant information from the technology provider would be in a position to (try to) dictate the terms of the acquisition and deployment of the technology, including through the critical assessment and, if needed, modification of emerging technical standards that could well fall short of the public interest embedded in the process of public sector digitalisation—though it would face significant limitations.

This is an ideal to which most public buyers cannot aspire. In fact, in the UK, the position is the reverse and the current approach is to try to facilitate experimentation with digital technologies for public buyers with no knowledge or digital capability whatsoever—see the Crown Commercial Service’s Artificial Intelligence Dynamic Purchasing System (CCS AI DPS), explicitly targeting inexperienced and digitally novice, to put it politely, public buyers by stressing that ‘If you are new to AI you will be able to procure services through a discovery phase, to get an understanding of AI and how it can benefit your organisation’.

Given the evidence in the DRCF AI report, this approach can only inflate the number of public sector buyers at the merci of technology providers. Especially because, while the CCS AI DPS tries to address some issues, such as ethical risks (though the effectiveness of this can also be queried), it makes clear that ‘quality, price and cultural fit (including social value) can be assessed based on individual customer requirements’. With ‘AI quality’ capturing all the problematic issues mentioned above (and, notably, AI performance), the CCS AI DPS is highly problematic.

If nothing else, the DRCF AI procurement report gives further credence to the need to change regulatory tack. Most importantly, the report evidences that there is a very real risk that public sector entities are currently buying AI they do not understand and are in no position to effectively control post-deployment. This risk needs to be addressed if the UK public is to trust the accelerating process of public sector digitalisation. As formulated elsewhere, this calls for a series of policy and regulatory interventions.

Ensuring that the adoption of AI in the public sector operates in the public interest and for the benefit of all citizens requires new legislation supported by a new mechanism of external oversight and enforcement. New legislation is required to impose specific minimum requirements of eg data governance and algorithmic impact assessment and related transparency across the public sector, to address the issue of lack of standards and metrics but without reliance on their development by and within the AI industry. Primary legislation would need to be developed by statutory guidance of a much more detailed and actionable nature than eg the current Guidelines for AI procurement. These developed requirements can then be embedded into public contracts by reference, and thus protect public buyers from vendor standard cherry-picking, as well as providing a clear benchmark against which to assess tenders.

Legislation would also be necessary to create an independent authority—eg an ‘AI in the Public Sector Authority’ (AIPSA)—with powers to enforce those minimum requirements across the public sector. AIPSA is necessary, as oversight of the use of AI in the public sector does not currently fall within the scope of any specific sectoral regulator and the general regulators (such as the Information Commissioner’s Office) lack procurement-specific knowledge. Moreover, units within Cabinet Office (such as the Office for AI or the Central Digital and Data Office) lack the required independence. The primary role of AIPSA would be to constrain the process of adoption of AI by the public sector, especially where the public buyer lacks digital capacity and is thus at risk of capture or overpowering by technological vendors.

In that regard, and until sufficient in-house capability is built to ensure adequate understanding of the technologies being procured (especially in the case of complex AI), and adequate ability to manage digital procurement governance requirements independently, AIPSA would have to approve all projects to develop, procure and deploy AI in the public sector to ensure that they meet the required legislative safeguards in terms of data governance, impact assessment, etc. This approach could progressively be relaxed through eg block exemption mechanisms, once there is sufficiently detailed understanding and guidance on specific AI use cases, and/or in relation to public sector entities that could demonstrate sufficient in-house capability, eg through a mechanism of independent certification in accordance with benchmarks set by AIPSA, or certification by AIPSA itself.

In parallel, it would also be necessary for the Government to develop a clear and sustainably funded strategy to build in-house capability in the public sector, including clear policies on the minimisation of expenditure directed at the engagement of external consultants and the development of guidance on how to ensure the capture and retention of the knowledge developed within outsourced projects (including, but not only, through detailed technical documentation).

None of this features in the recently released White Paper ‘AI regulation: a pro-innovation approach’. However, DRCF’s AI procurement report further evidences that these policy interventions are necessary. Else, the UK will be a jurisdiction where the public sector acquires and deploys technology it does not understand and cannot control. Surely, this is not the way to go.

Digital procurement, PPDS and multi-speed datafication -- some thoughts on the March 2023 PPDS Communication

The 2020 European strategy for data ear-marked public procurement as a high priority area for the development of common European data spaces for public administrations. The 2020 data strategy stressed that

Public procurement data are essential to improve transparency and accountability of public spending, fighting corruption and improving spending quality. Public procurement data is spread over several systems in the Member States, made available in different formats and is not easily possible to use for policy purposes in real-time. In many cases, the data quality needs to be improved.

To address those issues, the European Commission was planning to ‘Elaborate a data initiative for public procurement data covering both the EU dimension (EU datasets, such as TED) and the national ones’ by the end of 2020, which would be ‘complemented by a procurement data governance framework’ by mid 2021.

With a 2+ year delay, details for the creation of the public procurement data space (PPDS) were disclosed by the European Commission on 16 March 2023 in the PPDS Communication. The procurement data governance framework is now planned to be developed in the second half of 2023.

In this blog post, I offer some thoughts on the PPDS, its functional goals, likely effects, and the quickly closing window of opportunity for Member States to support its feasibility through an ambitious implementation of the new procurement eForms at domestic level (on which see earlier thoughts here).

1. The PPDS Communication and its goals

The PPDS Communication sets some lofty ambitions aligned with those of the closely-related process of procurement digitalisation, which the European Commission in its 2017 Making Procurement Work In and For Europe Communication already saw as not only an opportunity ‘to streamline and simplify the procurement process’, but also ‘to rethink fundamentally the way public procurement, and relevant parts of public administrations, are organised … [to seize] a unique chance to reshape the relevant systems and achieve a digital transformation’ (at 11-12).

Following the same rhetoric of transformation, the PPDS Communication now stresses that ‘Integrated data combined with the use of state-of the-art and emerging analytics technologies will not only transform public procurement, but also give new and valuable insights to public buyers, policy-makers, businesses and interested citizens alike‘ (at 2). It goes further to suggest that ‘given the high number of ecosystems concerned by public procurement and the amount of data to be analysed, the impact of AI in this field has a potential that we can only see a glimpse of so far‘ (at 2).

The PPDS Communication claims that this data space ‘will revolutionise the access to and use of public procurement data:

  • It will create a platform at EU level to access for the first time public procurement data scattered so far at EU, national and regional level.

  • It will considerably improve data quality, availability and completeness, through close cooperation between the Commission and Member States and the introduction of the new eForms, which will allow public buyers to provide information in a more structured way.

  • This wealth of data will be combined with an analytics toolset including advanced technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), for example in the form of Machine Learning (ML) and Natural Language Processing (NLP).’

A first comment or observation is that this rhetoric of transformation and revolution not only tends to create excessive expectations on what can realistically be delivered by the PPDS, but can also further fuel the ‘policy irresistibility’ of procurement digitalisation and thus eg generate excessive experimentation or investment into the deployment of digital technologies on the basis of such expectations around data access through PPDS (for discussion, see here). Policy-makers would do well to hold off on any investments and pilot projects seeking to exploit the data presumptively pooled in the PPDS until after its implementation. A closer look at the PPDS and the significant roadblocks towards its full implementation will shed further light on this issue.

2. What is the PPDS?

Put simply, the PPDS is a project to create a single data platform to bring into one place ‘all procurement data’ from across the EU—ie both data on above threshold contracts subjected to mandatory EU-wide publication through TED (via eForms from October 2023), and data on below threshold contracts, which publication may be required by the domestic laws of the Member States, or entirely voluntary for contracting authorities.

Given that above threshold procurement data is already (in the process of being) captured at EU level, the PPDS is very much about data on procurement not covered by the EU rules—which represents 80% of all public procurement contracts. As the PPDS Communication stresses

To unlock the full potential of public procurement, access to data and the ability to analyse it are essential. However, data from only 20% of all call for tenders as submitted by public buyers is available and searchable for analysis in one place [ie TED]. The remaining 80% are spread, in different formats, at national or regional level and difficult or impossible to re-use for policy, transparency and better spending purposes. In order (sic) words, public procurement is rich in data, but poor in making it work for taxpayers, policy makers and public buyers.

The PPDS thus intends to develop a ‘technical fix’ to gain a view on the below-threshold reality of procurement across the EU, by ‘pulling and pooling’ data from existing (and to be developed) domestic public contract registers and transparency portals. The PPDS is thus a mechanism for the aggregation of procurement data currently not available in (harmonised) machine-readable and structured formats (or at all).

As the PPDS Communication makes clear, it consists of four layers:
(1) A user interface layer (ie a website and/or app) underpinned by
(2) an analytics layer, which in turn is underpinned by (3) an integration layer that brings together and minimally quality-assures the (4) data layer sourced from TED, Member State public contract registers (including those at sub-national level), and data from other sources (eg data on beneficial ownership).

The two top layers condense all potential advantages of the PPDS, with the analytics layer seeking to develop a ‘toolset including emerging technologies (AI, ML and NLP)‘ to extract data insights for a multiplicity of purposes (see below 3), and the top user interface seeking to facilitate differential data access for different types of users and stakeholders (see below 4). The two bottom layers, and in particular the data layer, are the ones doing all the heavy lifting. Unavoidably, without data, the PPDS risks being little more than an empty shell. As always, ‘no data, no fun’ (see below 5).

Importantly, the top three layers are centralised and the European Commission has responsibility (and funding) for developing them, while the bottom data layer is decentralised, with each Member State retaining responsibility for digitalising its public procurement systems and connecting its data sources to the PPDS. Member States are also expected to bear their own costs, although there is EU funding available through different mechanisms. This allocation of responsibilities follows the limited competence of the EU in this area of inter-administrative cooperation, which unfortunately heightens the risks of the PPDS becoming little more than an empty shell, unless Member States really take the implementation of eForms and the collaborative approach to the construction of the PPDS seriously (see below 6).

The PPDS Communication foresees a progressive implementation of the PPDS, with the goal of having ‘the basic architecture and analytics toolkit in place and procurement data published at EU level available in the system by mid-2023. By the end of 2024, all participating national publication portals would be connected, historic data published at EU level integrated and the analytics toolkit expanded. As of 2025, the system could establish links with additional external data sources’ (at 2). It will most likely be delayed, but that is not very important in the long run—especially as the already accrued delays are the ones that pose a significant limitation on the adequate rollout of the PPDS (see below 6).

3. PPDS’ expected functionality

The PPDS Communication sets expectations around the functionality that could be extracted from the PPDS by different agents and stakeholders.

For public buyers, in addition to reducing the burden of complying with different types of (EU-mandated) reporting, the PPDS Communication expects that ‘insights gained from the PPDS will make it much easier for public buyers to

  • team up and buy in bulk to obtain better prices and higher quality;

  • generate more bids per call for tenders by making calls more attractive for bidders, especially for SMEs and start-ups;

  • fight collusion and corruption, as well as other criminal acts, by detecting suspicious patterns;

  • benchmark themselves more accurately against their peers and exchange knowledge, for instance with the aim of procuring more green, social and innovative products and services;

  • through the further digitalisation and emerging technologies that it brings about, automate tasks, bringing about considerable operational savings’ (at 2).

This largely maps onto my analysis of likely applications of digital technologies for procurement management, assuming the data is there (see here).

The PPDS Communication also expects that policy-makers will ‘gain a wealth of insights that will enable them to predict future trends‘; that economic operators, and SMEs in particular, ‘will have an easy-to-use portal that gives them access to a much greater number of open call for tenders with better data quality‘, and that ‘Citizens, civil society, taxpayers and other interested stakeholders will have access to much more public procurement data than before, thereby improving transparency and accountability of public spending‘ (at 2).

Of all the expected benefits or functionalities, the most important ones are those attributed to public buyers and, in particular, the possibility of developing ‘category management’ insights (eg potential savings or benchmarking), systems of red flags in relation to corruption and collusion risks, and the automation of some tasks. However, unlocking most of these functionalities is not dependent on the PPDS, but rather on the existence of procurement data at the ‘right’ level.

For example, category management or benchmarking may be more relevant or adequate (as well as more feasible) at national than at supra-national level, and the development of systems of red flags can also take place at below-EU level, as can automation. Importantly, the development of such functionalities using pan-EU data, or data concerning more than one Member State, could bias the tools in a way that makes them less suited, or unsuitable, for deployment at national level (eg if the AI is trained on data concerning solely jurisdictions other than the one where it would be deployed).

In that regard, the expected functionalities arising from PPDS require some further thought and it can well be that, depending on implementation (in particular in relation to multi-speed datafication, as below 5), Member States are better off solely using domestic data than that coming from the PPDS. This is to say that PPDS is not a solid reality and that its enabling character will fluctuate with its implementation.

4. Differential procurement data access through PPDS

As mentioned above, the PPDS Communication stresses that ‘Citizens, civil society, taxpayers and other interested stakeholders will have access to much more public procurement data than before, thereby improving transparency and accountability of public spending’ (at 2). However, this does not mean that the PPDS will be (entirely) open data.

The Communication itself makes clear that ‘Different user categories (e.g. Member States, public buyers, businesses, citizens, NGOs, journalists and researchers) will have different access rights, distinguishing between public and non-public data and between participating Member States that share their data with the PPDS (PPDS members, …) and those that need more time to prepare’ (at 8). Relatedly, ‘PPDS members will have access to data which is available within the PPDS. However, even those Member States that are not yet ready to participate in the PPDS stand to benefit from implementing the principles below, due to their value for operational efficiency and preparing for a more evidence-based policy’ (at 9). This raises two issues.

First, and rightly, the Communication makes clear that the PPDS moves away from a model of ‘fully open’ or ‘open by default’ procurement data, and that access to the PPDS will require differential permissioning. This is the correct approach. Regardless of the future procurement data governance framework, it is clear that the emerging thicket of EU data governance rules ‘requires the careful management of a system of multi-tiered access to different types of information at different times, by different stakeholders and under different conditions’ (see here). This will however raise significant issues for the implementation of the PPDS, as it will generate some constraints or disincentives for an ambitions implementation of eForms at national level (see below 6).

Second, and less clearly, the PPDS Communication evidences that not all Member States will automatically have equal access to PPDS data. The design seems to be such that Member States that do not feed data into PPDS will not have access to it. While this could be conceived as an incentive for all Member States to join PPDS, this outcome is by no means guaranteed. As above (3), it is not clear that Member States will be better off—in terms of their ability to extract data insights or to deploy digital technologies—by having access to pan-EU data. The main benefit resulting from pan-EU data only accrues collectively and, primarily, by means of facilitating oversight and enforcement by the European Commission. From that perspective, the incentives for PPDS participation for any given Member State may be quite warped or internally contradictory.

Moreover, given that plugging into PPDS is not cost-free, a Member State that developed a data architecture not immediately compatible with PPDS may well wonder whether it made sense to shoulder the additional costs and risks. From that perspective, it can only be hoped that the existence of EU funding and technical support will be maximised by the European Commission to offload that burden from the (reluctant) Member States. However, even then, full PPDS participation by all Member States will still not dispel the risk of multi-speed datafication.

5. No data, no fun — and multi-speed datafication

Related to the risk that some EU Member States will become PPDS members and others not, there is a risk (or rather, a reality) that not all PPDS members will equally contribute data—thus creating multi-speed datafication, even within the Member States that opt in to the PPDS.

First, the PPDS Communication makes it clear that ‘Member States will remain in control over which data they wish to share with the PPDS (beyond the data that must be published on TED under the Public Procurement Directives)‘ (at 7), It further specifies that ‘With the eForms, it will be possible for the first time to provide data in notices that should not be published, or not immediately. This is important to give assurance to public buyers that certain data is not made publicly available or not before a certain point in time (e.g. prices)’ (at 7, fn 17).

This means that each Member State will only have to plug whichever data it captures and decides to share into PPDS. It seems plain to see that this will result in different approaches to data capture, multiple levels of granularity, and varying approaches to restricting access to the date in the different Member States, especially bearing in mind that ‘eForms are not an “off the shelf” product that can be implemented only by IT developers. Instead, before developers start working, procurement policy decision-makers have to make a wide range of policy decisions on how eForms should be implemented’ in the different Member States (see eForms Implementation Handbook, at 9).

Second, the PPDS Communication is clear (in a footnote) that ‘One of the conditions for a successful establishment of the PPDS is that Member States put in place automatic data capture mechanisms, in a first step transmitting data from their national portals and contract registers’ (at 4, fn 10). This implies that Member States may need to move away from manually inputted information and that those seeking to create new mechanisms for automatic procurement data capture can take an incremental approach, which is very much baked into the PPDS design. This relates, for example, to the distinction between pre- and post-award procurement data, with pre-award data subjected to higher demands under EU law. It also relates to above and below threshold data, as only above threshold data is subjected to mandatory eForms compliance.

In the end, the extent to which a (willing) Member State will contribute data to the PPDS depends on its decisions on eForms implementation, which should be well underway given the October 2023 deadline for mandatory use (for above threshold contracts). Crucially, Member States contributing more data may feel let down when no comparable data is contributed to PPDS by other Member States, which can well operate as a disincentive to contribute any further data, rather than as an incentive for the others to match up that data.

6. Ambitious eForms implementation as the PPDS’ Achilles heel

As the analysis above has shown, the viability of the PPDS and its fitness for purpose (especially for EU-level oversight and enforcement purposes) crucially depends on the Member States deciding to take an ambitious approach to the implementation of eForms, not solely by maximising their flexibility for voluntary uses (as discussed here) but, crucially, by extending their mandatory use (under national law) to all below threshold procurement. It is now also clear that there is a need for as much homogeneity as possible in the implementation of eForms in order to guarantee that the information plugged into PPDS is comparable—which is an aspect of data quality that the PPDS Communication does not seem to have at all considered).

It seems that, due to competing timings, this poses a bit of a problem for the rollout of the PPDS. While eForms need to be fully implemented domestically by October 2023, the PPDS Communication suggests that the connection of national portals will be a matter for 2024, as the first part of the project will concern the top two layers and data connection will follow (or, at best, be developed in parallel). Somehow, it feels like the PPDS is being built without a strong enough foundation. It would be a shame (to put it mildly) if Member States having completed a transition to eForms by October 2023 were dissuaded from a second transition into a more ambitious eForms implementation in 2024 for the purposes of the PPDS.

Given that the most likely approach to eForms implementation is rather minimalistic, it can well be that the PPDS results in not much more than an empty shell with fancy digital analytics limited to very superficial uses. In that regard, the two-year delay in progressing the PPDS has created a very narrow (and quickly dwindling) window of opportunity for Member States to engage with an ambitions process of eForms implementation

7. Final thoughts

It seems to me that limited and slow progress will be attained under the PPDS in coming years. Given the undoubted value of harnessing procurement data, I sense that Member States will progress domestically, but primarily in specific settings such as that of their central purchasing bodies (see here). However, whether they will be onboarded into PPDS as enthusiastic members seems less likely.

The scenario seems to resemble limited voluntary cooperation in other areas (eg interoperability; for discussion see here). It may well be that the logic of EU competence allocation required this tentative step as a first move towards a more robust and proactive approach by the Commission in a few years, on grounds that the goal of creating the European data space could not be achieved through this less interventionist approach.

However, given the speed at which digital transformation could take place (and is taking place in some parts of the EU), and the rhetoric of transformation and revolution that keeps being used in this policy area, I can’t but feel let down by the approach in the PPDS Communication, which started with the decision to build the eForms on the existing regulatory framework, rather than more boldly seeking a reform of the EU procurement rules to facilitate their digital fitness.

Should FTAs open and close (or only open) international procurement markets?

I have recently had some interesting discussions on the role of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) in liberalising procurement-related international trade. The standard analysis is that FTAs serve the purpose of reciprocally opening up procurement markets to the economic operators of the signatory parties, and that the parties negotiate them on the basis of reciprocal concessions so that the market access given by A to economic operators from B roughly equates that given by B to economic operators from A (or is offset by other concessions from B in other chapters of the FTA with an imbalance in A’s favour).

Implicitly, this analysis assumes that A’s and B’s markets are (relatively) closed to third party economic operators, and that they will remain as such. The more interesting question is, though, whether FTAs should also close procurement markets to non-signatory parties in order to (partially) protect the concessions mutually granted, as well as to put pressure for further procurement-related trade liberalisation.

Let’s imagine that A, a party with several existing FTAs with third countries covering procurement, manages to negotiate the first FTA signed by B liberalising the latter’s procurement markets. It could seem that economic operators from A would have preferential access to B’s markets over any other economic operators (other than B’s, of course).

However, it can well be that, in practice, once the protectionist boat has sailed, B decides to entertain tenders coming from economic operators from C, D … Z for, once B’s domestic industries are not protected, B’s public buyers may well want to browse through the entire catalogue offered by the world market—especially if A does not have the most advanced industry for a specific type of good, service or technology (and I have a hunch this may well be a future scenario concerning digital technologies and AI in particular).

A similar issue can well arise where B already has other FTAs covering procurement and this generates a situation where it is difficult or complex for B’s public buyers to assess whether an economic operator from X does or not have guaranteed market access under the existing FTAs, which can well result in B’s public buyers granting access to economic operators from any origin to avoid legal risks resulting from an incorrect analysis of the existing legal commitments (once open for some, de facto open for all).

I am sure there are more situations where the apparent preferential access given by B to A in the notional FTA can be quickly eroded despite assumptions on how international trade liberalisation operates under FTAs. This thus begs the question whether A should include in its FTAs a clause binding B (and itself!) to unequal treatment (ie exclusion) of economic operators not covered by FTAs (either existing or future) or multilateral agreements. In that way, the concessions given by B to A may be more meaningful and long-lasting, or at least put pressure on third countries to participate in bilateral (and multilateral — looking at the WTO GPA) procurement-related liberalisation efforts.

In the EU’s specific case, the adoption of such requirements in its FTAs covering procurement would be aligned with the policy underlying the 2019 guidelines on third country access to procurement markets, the International Procurement Instrument, and the Foreign Subsidies Regulation.

It may be counter-intuitive that instruments of trade liberalisation should seek to close (or rather keep closed) some markets, but I think this is an issue where FTAs could be used more effectively not only to bilaterally liberalise trade, but also to generate further dynamics of trade liberalisation—or at least to avoid the erosion of bilateral commitments in situations of regulatory complexity or market dynamics pushing for ‘off-the-books’ liberalisation through the practical acceptance of tenders coming from anywhere.

This is an issue I would like to explore further after my digital tech procurement book, so I would be more than interested in thoughts and comments!

Revisiting the Fosen-Linjen Saga on threshold for procurement damages

I had the honour of being invited to contribute to a future publication to celebrate the EFTA Court’s 30th Anniversary in 2024. I was asked to revisit the Fosen-Linjen Saga on the EFTA Court’s interpretation of the threshold for liability in damages arising from breaches of EU/EEA procurement law.

The abstract of my chapter is as follows:

The 2017-2019 Fosen-Linjen Saga saw the EFTA Court issue diametrically opposed views on the threshold for damages liability arising from breaches of EEA/EU public procurement law. Despite the arguably clear position under EU law following the European Court of Justice’s 2010 Judgment in Spijker—ie that liability in damages under the Remedies Directive only arises when the breach is ‘sufficiently serious’—Fosen-Linjen I stated that a ‘simple breach of public procurement law is in itself sufficient to trigger the liability of the contracting authority’. Such an approach would have created divergence between EEA and EU procurement law and generated undesired effects on the administration of procurement procedures and excessive litigation. Moreover, Fosen-Linjen I showed significant internal and external inconsistencies, which rendered it an unsafe interpretation of the existing rules, tainted by judicial activism on the part of the EFTA Court under its then current composition. Taking the opportunity of a rare second referral, and under a different Court composition, Fosen-Linjen II U-turned and stated that the Remedies Directive ‘does not require that any breach of the rules governing public procurement in itself is sufficient to award damages’. This realigned EEA law with EU law in compliance with the uniform interpretation goal to foster legal homogeneity. This chapter revisits the Fosen-Linjen Saga and offers additional reflections on its implications, especially for a long-overdue review of the Remedies Directive.

The full chapter is available as: A Sanchez-Graells, ‘The Fosen-Linjen Saga: not so simple after all?’ in The EFTA Court and the EEA: 30 Years On (Oxford, Hart Publishing, forthcoming): https://ssrn.com/abstract=4388938.

Micro-purchases as political football? -- some thoughts on the UK's GPC files and needed regulatory reform

The issue of public micro-purchases has just gained political salience in the UK. The opposition Labour party has launched a dedicated website and an aggressive media campaign calling citizens to scrutinise the use of government procurement cards (GPCs). The analysis revealed so far and the political spin being put on it question the current government’s wastefulness and whether ‘lavish’ GPC expenses are adequate and commensurate with the cost of living crisis and other social pressures. Whether this will yield the political results Labour hopes for is anybody’s guess (I am sceptical), but this is an opportunity to revisit GPC regulation and to action long-standing National Audit Office recommendations on transparency and controls, as well as to reconsider the interaction between GPCs and procurement vehicles based on data analysis. The political football around the frugality expected of a government in times of economic crisis should not obscure the clear need to strengthen GPC regulation in the UK.

Background

GPCs are debit or credit cards that allow government officials to pay vendors directly. In the UK, their issue is facilitated by a framework agreement run by the Crown Commercial Service. These cards are presented as a means to accelerate payment to public vendors (see eg current UK policy). However, their regulatory importance goes beyond their providing an (agile) means of payment, as they generate the risk of public purchases bypassing procurement procedures. If a public official can simply interact with a vendor of their choice and ‘put it on the card’, this can be a way to funnel public funds and engage with direct awards outside procurement procedures. There is thus a clear difference between the use of GPCs within procurement transactions (eg to pay for call-offs within a pre-existing framework agreement) and their use instead of procurement transactions (eg a public official buying something off your preferred online retailer and paying with a card).

Uses within procurement seem rather uncontroversial and the specific mechanism used to pay invoices should be driven by administrative efficiency considerations. There are also good reasons for (some) government officials to hold a GPC to cover the types of expenses that are difficult to procure (eg those linked to foreign travel, or unavoidably ‘spontaneous’ expenses, such as those relating to hospitality). In those cases, GPCs substitute for either the need to provide officials with cash advances (and thus create much sounder mechanisms to control the expenditure, as well as avoiding the circulation of cash with its own corruption and other risks), or to force them to pay in advance from their private pockets and then claim reimbursement (which can put many a public sector worker in financial difficulties, as eg academics know all too well).

The crucial issue then becomes how to control the expenditure under the GPCs and how to impose limits that prevent the bypassing of procurement rules and existing mechanisms. From this perspective, procurement cards are not a new phenomenon at all, and the challenges they pose from a procurement and government contracting perspective have long been understood and discussed—see eg Steven L Schooner and Neil S Whiteman, ‘Purchase Cards and Micro-Purchases: Sacrificing Traditional United States Procurement Policies at the Alter of Efficiency’ (2000) 9 Public Procurement Law Review 148. The UK’s National Audit Office (NAO) also carried out an in-depth investigation and published a report on the issue in 2012.

The regulatory and academic recommendations seeking to ensure probity and value for money in the use of GPCs as a (procurement) mechanism generally address three issues: (1) limits on expenditure, (2) (internal) expenditure control, and (3) expenditure transparency. I would add a fourth issue, which relates to (4) bypassing existing (or easy to set up) procurement frameworks. It is worth noting that the GPC files report provides useful information on each of these issues, all of which requires rethinking in the context of the UK’s current process of reforming procurement law.

Expenditure limits

The GPC files show how there are three relevant value thresholds: the threshold triggering expenditure transparency (currently £500), the maximum single transaction limit (currently £20,000, which raised the pre-pandemic £10,000), and the maximum monthly expenditure (currently £100,000, which raised the pre-pandemic limits if they were lower). It is worth assessing these limits from the perspective of their interaction with procurement rules, as well as broader considerations.

The first consideration is that the £500 threshold triggering expenditure transparency has remained fixed since 2011. Given a cumulative inflation of close to 30% in the period 2011-2022, this means that the threshold has constantly been lower in comparative purchase parity. This should make us reconsider the relevance of some of the findings in the GPC files. Eg the fact that, within its scope, there were ‘65,824 transactions above £500 in 2021, compared to 35,335 in 2010-11’ is not very helpful. This raises questions on the adequacy of having a (fixed) threshold below which expenditure is not published. While the NAO was reluctant to recommend full transparency in 2011, it seems that the administrative burden of providing such transparency has massively lowered in the intervening period, so this may be the time to scrape the transparency threshold. As below, however, this does not mean that the information should be immediately published in open data (as below).

The single transaction limit is the one with the most relevance from a procurement perspective. If a public official can use a GPC for a value exceeding the threshold of regulated procurement, then the rules are not well aligned and there is a clear regulatory risk. Under current UK law, central government contracts with a value above £12,000 must be advertised. This would be kept as the general rule in the Procurement Bill (clause 86(4)), unless there are further amendments prior to its entry into force. This evidences a clear regulatory risk of bypassing procurement (advertising) obligations through GPC use. The single transaction limit should be brought back to pre-pandemic levels (£10,000) or, at least, to the value threshold triggering procurement obligations (£12,000).

The maximum monthly expenditure should be reassessed from an (internal) control perspective (as below), but the need to ensure that GPCs cannot be used to fraction (above threshold) direct awards over short periods of time should also be taken into consideration. From that perspective, ensuring that a card holder cannot spend more than eg £138,760 in a given category of goods or services per month (which is the relevant threshold under both current rules and the foreseen Procurement Bill). Current data analytics in basic banking applications should facilitate such classification and limitation.

(internal) expenditure controls

The GPC files raise questions not only on the robustness of internal controls, but also on the accounting underpinning them (see pp 11-12). Most importantly, there seems to be no meaningful internal post-expenditure control to check for accounting problems or suspected fraudulent use, or no willingness to disclose how any such mechanisms operate. This creates expenditure control opacity that can point to a big governance gap. Expenditure controls should not only apply at the point of deciding who to authorise to hold and use a GPC and up to which expenditure limit, but also (and perhaps more importantly), to how expenditure is being carried out. From a regulatory theory perspective, it is very clear that the use of GPCs is framed under an agency relationship and it is very important to continuously signal to the agent that the principal is monitoring the use of the card and that there are serious (criminal) consequences to misuse. As things stand, it seems that ex post internal controls may operate in some departments (eg those that report recovery for inappropriately used funds) but not (effectively) in others. This requires urgent review of the mechanisms of pre- and post-expenditure control. An update of the 2012 NAO report seems necessary.

Expenditure transparency

The GPC files (pp 10-11) show clear problems in the implementation of the policy of disclosing all expenditure in transactions exceeding £500, which should be published published monthly, 2 months in arrears, despite (relatively clear) guidance to that effect. In addition to facilitating the suppression of the transparency threshold, developments in the collection and publication of open data should also facilitate the rollout of a clear plan to ensure effective publication without the gaps identified in the GPC files (and other problems in practice). However, this is also a good time to carefully consider the purpose of these publications and the need to harmonise them with the publication of other procurement information.

There are conflicting issues at hand. First, the current policy of publishing 2 months in arrears does not seem justified in relation to some qualified users of that information, such as those with an oversight role (or fraud investigation powers). Second, in relation to the general public, publication in full of all details may not be adequate within that time period in some cases, and the publication of some information may not be appropriate at all. There are, of course, intermediate situations, such as data access for journalists of research academics. In relation to this data, as well as all procurement data, this is an opportunity to create a sophisticated data-management architecture that can handle of multi-tiered access to different types of information at different times, by different stakeholders and under different conditions (see here and here).

bypassing procurement frameworks

A final consideration is that the GPC files evidence a risk that GPCs may be used in ways that bypass existing procurement frameworks, or in ways that would require setting up new frameworks (or other types of procurement vehicle, such as dynamic purchasing systems). The use of GPCs to buy goods off Amazon is the clearest example (see pp 24-25), as there is nothing in the functioning of Amazon that could not be replicated through pre-procured frameworks supported by electronic catalogues. In that regard, GPC data should be used to establish the (administrative) efficiency of creating (new) frameworks and to inform product (and service) selection for inclusion therein. There should also be a clear prohibition of using GPCs outside existing frameworks unless better value for money for identical products can be documented, in which case this should also be reported to the entity running the relevant framework (presumably, the Crown Commercial Service) for review.

Conclusion

In addition to discussions about the type and level of expenditure that (high-raking) public officials should be authorised to incur as a political and policy matter, there is clearly a need and opportunity to engage in serious discussions on the tightening of the regulation of GPCs in the UK, and these should be coordinated with the passage of the Procurement Bill through the House of Commons. I have identified the following areas for action:

  • Suppression of the value threshold triggering transparency of specific transactions, so that all transactions are subjected to reporting.

  • Coordination of the single transaction threshold with that triggering procurement obligations for central government (which is to also apply to local and other contracting authorities).

  • Coordination of the maximum monthly spend limit with the threshold for international advertising of contract opportunities, so that no public official can spend more than the relevant amount in a given category of goods or services per month.

  • Launch of a new investigation and report by NAO on the existing mechanisms of pre- and post-expenditure control.

  • Creation of a sophisticated data-management architecture that can handle of multi-tiered access to different types of information at different times, by different stakeholders and under different conditions. This needs to be in parallel or jointly with proposals under the Procurement Bill.

  • There should also be a clear prohibition of using GPCs outside existing frameworks unless better value for money for identical products can be documented. GPC data should be used to inform the creation and management of procurement frameworks and other commercial vehicles.

Some further thoughts on setting procurement up to fail in 'AI regulation by contract'

The next bit of my reseach project concerns the leveraging of procurement to achieve ‘AI regulation by contract’ (ie to ensure in the use of AI by the public sector: trustworthiness, safety, explainability, human rights compliance, legality especially in data protection terms, ethical use, etc), so I have been thinking about it for the last few weeks to build on my previous views (see here).

In this post, I summarise my further thoughts — which have been prompted by the rich submissions to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee [ongoing] inquiry on the ‘Governance of Artificial Intelligence’.

Let’s do it via procurement

As a starting point, it is worth stressing that the (perhaps unsurprising) increasingly generalised position is that procurement has a key role to play in regulating the adoption of digital technologies (and AI in particular) by the public sector—which consolidates procurement’s gatekeeping role in this regulatory space (see here).

More precisely, the generalised view is not that procurement ought to play such a role, but that it can do so (effectively and meaningfully). ‘AI regulation by contract’ via procurement is seen as an (easily?) actionable policy and governance mechanism despite the more generalised reluctance and difficulties in regulating AI through general legislative and policy measures, and in creating adequate governance architectures (more below).

This is very clear in several submissions to the ongoing Parliamentary inquiry (above). Without seeking to be exhaustive (I have read most, but not all submissions yet), the following points have been made in written submissions (liberally grouped by topics):

Procurement as (soft) AI regulation by contract & ‘Market leadership’

  • ‘Procurement processes can act as a form of soft regulation … Government should use its purchasing power in the market to set procurement requirements that ensure private companies developing AI for the public sector address public standards. ’ (Committee on Standards in Public Life, at [25]-[26], emphasis added).

  • ‘For public sector AI projects, two specific strategies could be adopted [to regulate AI use]. The first … is the use of strategic procurement. This approach utilises government funding to drive change in how AI is built and implemented, which can lead to positive spill-over effects in the industry’ (Oxford Internet Institute, at 5, emphasis added).

  • ‘Responsible AI Licences (“RAILs”) utilise the well-established mechanisms of software and technology licensing to promote self-governance within the AI sector. RAILs allow developers, researchers, and companies to publish AI innovations while specifying restrictions on the use of source code, data, and models. These restrictions can refer to high-level restrictions (e.g., prohibiting uses that would discriminate against any individual) as well as application-specific restrictions (e.g., prohibiting the use of a facial recognition system without consent) … The adoption of such licenses for AI systems funded by public procurement and publicly-funded AI research will help support a pro-innovation culture that acknowledges the unique governance challenges posed by emerging AI technologies’ (Trustworthy Autonomous Systems Hub, at 4, emphasis added).

Procurement and AI explainability

  • ‘public bodies will need to consider explainability in the early stages of AI design and development, and during the procurement process, where requirements for transparency could be stipulated in tenders and contracts’ (Committee on Standards in Public Life, at [17], emphasis added).

  • ‘In the absence of strong regulations, the public sector may use strategic procurement to promote equitable and transparent AI … mandating various criteria in procurement announcements and specifying design criteria, including explainability and interpretability requirements. In addition, clear documentation on the function of a proposed AI system, the data used and an explanation of how it works can help. Beyond this, an approved vendor list for AI procurement in the public sector is useful, to which vendors that agree to meet the defined transparency and explainability requirements may be added’ (Oxford Internet Institute, at 2, referring to K McBride et al (2021) ‘Towards a Systematic Understanding on the Challenges of Procuring Artificial Intelligence in the Public Sector’, emphasis added).

Procurement and AI ethics

  • ‘For example, procurement processes should be designed so products and services that facilitate high standards are preferred and companies that prioritise ethical practices are rewarded. As part of the commissioning process, the government should set out the ethical principles expected of companies providing AI services to the public sector. Adherence to ethical standards should be given an appropriate weighting as part of the evaluation process, and companies that show a commitment to them should be scored more highly than those that do not (Committee on Standards in Public Life, at [26], emphasis added).

Procurement and algorithmic transparency

  • ‘… unlike public bodies, the private sector is not bound by the same safeguards – such as the Public Sector Equality Duty within the Equality Act 2010 (EA) – and is able to shield itself from criticisms regarding transparency behind the veil of ‘commercial sensitivity’. In addition to considering the private company’s purpose, AI governance itself must cover the private as well as public sphere, and be regulated to the same, if not a higher standard. This could include strict procurement rules – for example that private companies need to release certain information to the end user/public, and independent auditing of AI systems’ (Liberty, at [20]).

  • ‘… it is important that public sector agencies are duly empowered to inspect the technologies they’re procuring and are not prevented from doing so by the intellectual property rights. Public sector buyers should use their purchasing power to demand access to suppliers’ systems to test and prove their claims about, for example, accuracy and bias’ (BILETA, at 6).

Procurement and technical standards

  • ‘Standards hold an important role in any potential regulatory regime for AI. Standards have the potential to improve transparency and explainability of AI systems to detail data provenance and improve procurement requirements’ (Ada Lovelace Institute, at 10)

  • ‘The speed at which the technology can develop poses a challenge as it is often faster than the development of both regulation and standards. Few mature standards for autonomous systems exist and adoption of emerging standards need to be encouraged through mechanisms such as regulation and procurement, for example by including the requirement to meet certain standards in procurement specification’ (Royal Academy of Engineering, at 8).

Can procurement do it, though?

Implicit in most views about the possibility of using procurement to regulate public sector AI adoption (and to generate broader spillover effects through market-based propagation mechanisms) is an assumption that the public buyer does (or can get to) know and can (fully, or sufficiently) specify the required standards of explainability, transparency, ethical governance, and a myriad other technical requirements (on auditability, documentation, etc) for the use of AI to be in the public interest and fully legally compliant. Or, relatedly, that such standards can (and will) be developed and readily available for the public buyer to effectively refer to and incorporate them into its public contracts.

This is a BIG implicit assumption, at least in relation with non trivial/open-ended proceduralised requirements and in relation to most of the complex issues raised by (advanced) forms of AI deployment. A sobering and persuasive analysis has shown that, at least for some forms of AI (based on neural networks), ‘it appears unlikely that anyone will be able to develop standards to guide development and testing that give us sufficient confidence in the applications’ respect for health and fundamental rights. We can throw risk management systems, monitoring guidelines, and documentation requirements around all we like, but it will not change that simple fact. It may even risk giving us a false sense of confidence’ [H Pouget, ‘The EU’s AI Act Is Barreling Toward AI Standards That Do Not Exist’ (Lawfare.com, 12 Jan 2023)].

Even for less complex AI deployments, the development of standards will be contested and protracted. This not only creates a transient regulatory gap that forces public buyers to ‘figure it out’ by themselves in the meantime, but can well result in a permanent regulatory gap that leaves procurement as the only safeguard (on paper) in the process of AI adoption in the public sector. If more general and specialised processes of standard setting are unlikely to plug that gap quickly or ever, how can public buyers be expected to do otherwise?

seriously, can procurement do it?

Further, as I wrote in my own submission to the Parliamentary inquiry, ‘to effectively regulate by contract, it is at least necessary to have (i) clarity on the content of the obligations to be imposed, (ii) effective enforcement mechanisms, and (iii) public sector capacity to establish, monitor, and enforce those obligations. Given that the aim of regulation by contract would be to ensure that the public sector only adopts trustworthy AI solutions and deploys them in a way that promotes the public interest in compliance with existing standards of protection of fundamental and individual rights, exercising the expected gatekeeping role in this context requires a level of legal, ethical, and digital capability well beyond the requirements of earlier instances of regulation by contract to eg enforce labour standards’ (at [4]).

Even optimistically ignoring the issues above and adopting the presumption that standards will emerge or the public buyer will be able to (eventually) figure it out (so we park requirement (i) for now), and also assuming that the public sector will be able to develop the required level of eg digital capability (so we also park (iii), but see here)), does however not overcome other obstacles to leveraging procurement for ‘AI regulation by contract’. In particular, it does not address the issue of whether there can be effective enforcement mechanisms within the contractual relationship resulting from a procurement process to impose compliance with the required standards (of explainability, transparency, ethical use, non-discrimination, etc).

I approach this issue as the challenge of enforcing not entirely measurable contractual obligations (ie obligations to comply with a contractual standard rather than a contractual rule), and the closest parallel that comes to my mind is the issue of enforcing quality requirements in public contracts, especially in the provision of outsourced or contracted-out public services. This is an issue on which there is a rich literature (on ‘regulation by contract’ or ‘government by contract’).

Quality-related enforcement problems relate to the difficulty of using contract law remedies to address quality shortcomings (other than perhaps price reductions or contractual penalties where those are permissible) that can do little to address the quality issues in themselves. Major quality shortcomings could lead to eg contractual termination, but replacing contractors can be costly and difficult (especially in a technological setting affected by several sources of potential vendor and technology lock in). Other mechanisms, such as leveraging past performance evaluations to eg bar access to future procurements can also do too little too late to control quality within a specific contract.

An illuminating analysis of the ‘problem of quality’ concluded that the ‘structural problem here is that reliable assurance of quality in performance depends ultimately not on contract terms but on trust and non-legal relations. Relations of trust and powerful non-legal sanctions depend upon the establishment of long-term … relations … The need for a governance structure and detailed monitoring in order to achieve co-operation and quality seems to lead towards the creation of conflictual relations between government and external contractors’ [see H Collins, Regulating Contracts (OUP 1999) 314-15].

To me, this raises important questions about the extent to which procurement and public contracts more generally can effectively deliver the expected safeguards and operate as an adequate sytem of ‘AI regulation by contract’. It seems to me that price clawbacks or financial penalties, even debarment decisions, are unilkely to provide an acceptable safety net in some (or most) cases — eg high-risk uses of complex AI. Not least because procurement disputes can take a long time to settle and because the incentives will not always be there to ensure strict enforcement anyway.

More thoughts to come

It seems increasingly clear to me that the expectations around the leveraging of procurement to ‘regulate AI by contract’ need reassessing in view of its likely effectiveness. Such effectiveness is constrained by the rules on the design of tenders for the award of public contracts, as well as those public contracts, and mechanisms to resolve disputes emerging from either tenders or contracts. The effectiveness of this approach is, of course, also constrained by public sector (digital) capability and by the broader difficulties in ascertaining the appropriate approach to (standards-based) AI regulation, which cannot so easily be set aside. I will keep thinking about all this in the process of writing my monograph. If this is of interested, keep an eye on this blog fior further thougths and analysis.