In its Judgment in Communicaid Group v Commission, T-4/13, EU:T:2014:431, the General Court (GC) decided another appeal against EU Institution's public procurement decisions. In this case, the procurement was for language training services for staff of the institutions, bodies and agencies of the European Union in Brussels, and the appellant challenged the rejection of its tender on several grounds, including violations of the principles of transparency and equal treatment.
The case raises a number of issues, but I think that it can be particularly interesting from the perspective of conflicts of interest in the evaluation of tenders, since the appellant submitted that "one of the seconded national experts who had been employed by the Commission in its Directorate-General (DG) for human resources (‘Commission unit B.3’) in the months prior to publication of the contract notice at issue and who had sat on a tender evaluation committee in a similar award procedure was now employed by the successful tenderer, and had played a role in the preparation of the latter’s tenders." In the appellants view, this situation resulted in a breach of the principle of equal treatment and, in the end, should be sufficient grounds for the annulment of the negotiated procedure for language training services framework contracts.
The GC framed the analysis of this situation in the following way:
53 [...] according to the case-law, the fact that a tenderer, even though he has no intention of doing so, is capable of influencing the conditions of a call for tenders in a manner favourable to himself constitutes a situation of a conflict of interests. In that regard, the conflict of interests constitutes a breach of the equal treatment of candidates and of equal opportunities for tenderers (Joined Cases C‑21/03 and C‑34/03 Fabricom  ECR I‑1559, paragraphs 29 and 30, and Case T‑160/03 AFCon Management Consultants and Others v Commission  ECR II‑981, paragraph 74).
However, that situation is slightly different from the one at hand in Communicaid, given that the advantage that the tenderer would have had would not derive from the ability to influence the terms of the call (as was the issue in Fabricom), but from the fact that it had access to 'privileged'/'insider' information about how to respond to the tender. Hence, this creates a factually different scenario, which analysis will be interesting.
Before looking at the analysis that the GC carried out, and further to the precedent concerned with the prior involvement of consultants that then become tenderers in Fabricom, Joined cases C-21/03 and C-34/03, EU:C:2005:127 [for discussion see S Treumer, "Technical Dialogue and the Principle of Equal Treatment: Dealing with conflicts of Interests after Fabricom" (2007) Public Procurement Law Review, No. 2, 99-115]; it is worth noting that conflicts of interest are now regulated in Art 24 of Directive 2014/24 (not directly applicable to EU institutions procurement, but with a clear potential to work as guidance for the EU courts in the future). According to this new provision:
Member States shall ensure that contracting authorities take appropriate measures to effectively prevent, identify and remedy conflicts of interest arising in the conduct of procurement procedures so as to avoid any distortion of competition and to ensure equal treatment of all economic operators.
The concept of conflicts of interest shall at least cover any situation where staff members of the contracting authority or of a procurement service provider acting on behalf of the contracting authority who are involved in the conduct of the procurement procedure or may influence the outcome of that procedure have, directly or indirectly, a financial, economic or other personal interest which might be perceived to compromise their impartiality and independence in the context of the procurement procedure.
The new rules, then, seem to set out a rather demanding obligation to avoid conflicts of interest in the members of evaluation teams. Under the 'minimum' definition in the second paragraph of Art 24 dir 2014/24, it is clear that contracting authorities must avoid Fabricom-like conflicts of interest. However, the case of Communicaid was concerned with a 'bordeline' situation of potential conflict of interest, which subsumption under the 'minimum' definition of conflicts of interest will need to be tested. I would argue that they are caught by the general mandate of the first paragraph, but I am sure that there is scope for much discussion on the interpretation of this provision [and recital (16) dir 2014/24 does not shed any bright light: "Contracting authorities should make use of all possible means at their disposal under national law in order to prevent distortions in public procurement procedures stemming from conflicts of interest. This could include procedures to identify, prevent and remedy conflicts of interests."].
In my view, however, given the permissive treatment applied by the GC in Communicaid, these situations are unlikely to be effectively covered by Article 24 of Directive 2014/24--unless the CJEU develops a more stringent approach when it interprets that provision. Indeed, the GC considered that:
57 The applicant also argues that the successful tenderer
enjoyed an unfair advantage because of the former seconded national expert’s
participation in a previous call for tenders as a member of the evaluation
58 In that respect, it must be pointed out that, according
to the Commission, the applicant has not proved that the former seconded
national expert participated in the drafting of the successful tenders for Lots
1 to 9. In order to prove that he did, the applicant has produced statements
prepared by three of its employees, describing conversations they had with the
former seconded national expert at the dinner on 13 November 2012 [...]. However, it must be noted that those statements do not
show conclusively that the former seconded national expert participated in the
drafting of the successful tenders for Lots 1 to 9, since the impressions of
the applicant’s employees as to whether that was the case have been expressly
contradicted by the person concerned himself. In any event, even if those
statements did prove such participation by the former seconded national expert,
it must be noted that their probative value is weak since they were made by the
applicant’s employees, who have a particular interest in the contract being
awarded to the applicant.
59 In the present case, even supposing that the former
seconded national expert did participate in the drafting of the successful
tenders, it must be pointed out that the applicant, by the evidence which it
has submitted, has proved neither the participation of the former seconded
national expert in the preparation of the call for tenders at issue, nor the
unfair advantage that the successful tenderer allegedly enjoyed because its new
employee was a member of a tender evaluation committee in a previous, similar
procurement procedure. Furthermore, as the Commission rightly points out, the
applicant has provided language training services to the EU institutions since
2008 and collaborated with the Commission in the context of the contract
previous to the call for tenders at issue, with the result that it had
information on the needs and requirements of the European institutions,
notwithstanding the fact that the contract previous to the call for tenders at
issue, contrary to the present call for tenders, did not include blended
60 It follows from all the foregoing that the applicant has
not proved that the fact that one of the successful tenderer’s employees worked
at the Commission as a seconded national expert gave it an unfair advantage in
the procurement procedure at issue of such a kind as to infringe the principles
of non-discrimination and of equal treatment. Nor, moreover, has the applicant
proved the infringement of the principle of transparency (T-4/13 at paras 57-60, emphasis added).
In my view, the GC has applied an excessively demanding burden of proof of not only the existence of a conflict of interest, but of its effects (ie of the existence of an actual de facto advantage derived from the existence of the conflict of interest). Such a high burden will result in a very weak effectiveness of the rules on conflicts of interest, given that they tend to involve the need to resort to indirect methods of proof and to indicia of advantage. Hence, this should not be welcome as a functional approach to adjudication of instances of (evident) conflict of interest and, at some point, it would have been necessary to resort to the techniques of presumption of advantage or, at least, reversal of the burden of proof. When conflicts of interest are concerned, it is worth remembering that Caesar's wife must be above suspicion...