ECJ stresses flexibility for subcontracting and teaming in the 2014 EU Public Procurement Package (C-298/15)

In its Judgment of 5 April 2017 in Borta, C-298/15, EU:C:2017:266, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) largely followed the Opinion of AG Sharpston (commented here) and ruled on the incompatibility with EU law of a national rule that partially prohibited subcontracting by establishing that, where subcontractors are relied on for the performance of a public works contract, the tenderer is required to perform itself the main works, as defined by the contracting entity.

The ECJ also established that, even if there can be good reasons to ensure a correspondence between the parts of the works to be carried out by the members of a joint bid and their individual professional, technical and economic standing, EU procurement law is not compatible with a rule that imposes an arithmetic correspondence between the contribution of each of the tenderers and the share of the works that that tenderer undertakes to perform if the contract is awarded.

This is an interesting Judgment because it assesses issues around subcontracting and reliance on third party capacities in the area of utilities procurement and by reference to general free movement provisions in the TFEU. In my view, the line of reasoning followed by the ECJ in Borta offers good indications of the way in which subcontracting and teaming provisions in the 2014 EU Public Procurement Package will be interpreted.

The following is a summary of the reasons provided by the ECJ to determine the incompatibility with EU law of rules prohibiting subcontracting the main works involved in any project (a), as well as those requiring arithmetic correspondence between share of professional, technical (and economic) capacity and share of works to be carried out by members of a joint tender (b). A few common trends and future challenges are identified by way of conclusion (c).

It is worth noting that the ECJ also assessed issues concerning the modification of the tender documents after their publication in the light of the fundamental rules and general principles of the TFEU, among which are the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment and the obligation of transparency which derive, in particular, from Articles 49 and 56 TFEU (see paras 62-77). However, those issues are not discussed in this post.

(a) Flexibility for subcontracting

The ECJ assessed the compatibility with Arts 49 and 56 TFEU of a national procurement rule prohibiting the subcontracting of the 'main works' in a project, as defined by the contracting authority. The ECJ determined that such a measure " is liable to prohibit, impede or render less attractive the participation of economic operators established in other Member States in the award procedure or the performance of a public contract..., since it prevents them either from subcontracting to third parties all or part of the works identified as the ‘main works’ by the contracting entity, or from proposing their services as subcontractors for that part of the works" (para 49).

Once the restriction on free movement was established, the ECJ proceeded to assess its possible justification. To that end, the ECJ considered the reasons given for the adoption of this rule, which mainly intended to "ensure that the works are properly executed" and was, more specifically, aimed at "preventing a current practice which consists in a tenderer claiming to have professional capacities solely in order to win the contract concerned, not with the intention of performing the works itself, but of entrusting all or most of those works to subcontractors, a practice which affects the quality of the works and their proper performance. Second, by limiting the reliance on subcontractors to works identified as ‘subsidiary’, [the rule aimed] to encourage the participation of small and medium-sized undertakings in public contracts as joint-tenderers in a group of economic operators rather than as subcontractors" (para 52). The ECJ dealt with these are three grounds for justification.

1. The ECJ accepted that aiming to ensure the proper execution of the works is a legitimate goal, but considered the measure disproportionate. Both because it "applies whatever the economic sector concerned by the contract at issue, the nature of the works and the qualifications of the subcontractors. Furthermore, such a general prohibition does not allow for any assessment on a case-by-case basis by that entity" (para 55); and because it prohibits subcontracting "in situations in which the contracting entity is able to verify the capacities of the subcontractors concerned and to take the view, after that verification, that such a prohibition is unnecessary for the proper execution of the works having regard, in particular, to the nature of the tasks that the tenderer plans to delegate to those subcontractors" (para 56). The existence of less restrictive measures also contributed to this finding of disproportion (para 57).
2. The ECJ did not make an explicit finding on the legitimacy of aiming to prevent 'front tendering' and subsequent subcontracting of most of the contract (which can be assumed to be a legitimate goal), but established that the measure is not suited and/or disproportionate to that goal because "it prohibits the tenderer from delegating the performance of all the works identified as the ‘main’ works by the contracting entity, including the tasks which represent, proportionally, only a small part of those works. Therefore, that provision goes beyond what is necessary to prevent the abovementioned practice" (para 58).

3. The ECJ finally accepted that, as a matter of principle, it is conceivable that "the encouragement of small and medium-sized undertakings to participate in a contract as tenderers rather than subcontractors" can, "in certain circumstances and under certain conditions, constitute a legitimate objective" (para 59). However, it found no evidence that this was the case in the specific situation.

Therefore, having rejected all possible justifications, the ECJ determined that "Articles 49 and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law ... which provides that, where subcontractors are relied on for the performance of a public works contract, the tenderer is required to carry out the main works itself, as defined by the contracting entity" (para 61).

(b) Flexibility for (asymmetrical) joint tendering

The ECJ assessed a second substantive issue concerning joint tendering and, in particular, the imposition of the requirement that "in circumstances in which a common tender is submitted by several tenderers, ... the contribution of each of them in order to satisfy the requirements applicable with regard to professional capacities corresponds proportionally to the share of the works they will actually carry out if the relevant contract is awarded to them" (para 78).

It is interesting to note that, despite the inapplicability of the 2004 Utilities Directive to the award of the contract (which was below thresholds), the ECJ assessed the compatibility of such requirements with the Directive because the domestic law had made "those provisions have ... applicable ... in a direct and unconditional way" and did that "in order to ensure that internal situations and situations governed by EU law are treated in the same way" (see paras 33-34). Therefore, the ECJ's analysis was carried out "in the light of Article 54(6) of Directive 2004/17" (para 84) and is thus relevant for the future interpretation of Art 78 of Directive 2014/25--as well as, I would argue, Art 58(4) of Directive 2014/24.

I also find it interesting to note that the ECJ sets out the general framework for assessment by reference to the recent Judgment in PARTNER Apelski Dariusz, C-324/14, EU:C:2016:214 (for discussion, see here) and in the following terms (paras 85-86): 

• EU public procurement law "recognises the right of every economic operator, where the contracting entity lays down a qualitative selection criterion consisting of requirements relating to technical or professional abilities, to rely for a particular contract upon the capacities of other entities, regardless of the nature of the links which it has with them, provided that it proves to the contracting authority that it will have at its disposal the resources necessary for the performance of the contract"
• "that right extends to groups of economic operators submitting a common tender, which may, under the same conditions, rely on the capacities of their participants or of other entities."
• EU public procurement law "does not preclude the exercise of the right ... from being limited in exceptional circumstances".

The ECJ recognises that restrictions on the possibility to rely on third party capacities could be justified on the need to "avoid the situation in which, in order to win the contract, a tenderer relies on capacities that he does not intend to use or, conversely, that a tenderer may be awarded a contract and perform part of the works without having the capacities and resources necessary for the proper performance of those works" (para 90).

However, , the ECJ ends up concluding that (paras 92-94):

• the clause that requires "an arithmetic correspondence between the contribution of each of the tenderers concerned to satisfy the requirements applicable with regard to professional capacity and the share of the works that that tenderer undertakes to perform and that it will in fact perform if the contract is awarded", however, "does not take account of the nature of the tasks to be carried out or to the technical capacities specific to each of them" and, consequently, "does not prevent one of the tenderers concerned from carrying out specific tasks for which it does not in fact have the experience or capacities required".
• Furthermore, if subcontracting of some ('subsidiary') works is possible and the professional capacities of the subcontractors are not verified (which is for the referring court to ascertain), then the requirement "does not guarantee that the tenderers will actually use the capacities that they have declared in the procurement procedure and which were taken into consideration" by the contracting authority; and "it does not prevent works defined as ‘subsidiary’ from being carried out by subcontractors without the professional capacities required".
• Ultimately, then, the requirement is not appropriate to ensure the attainment of the objectives pursued.

(c) Common trends and future challenges

Taken together with previous case law in the area of exclusion, qualitative selection and subcontracting--such as Ostas celtnieks, Partner Apelski Dariusz and Wrocław — Miasto na prawach powiatu, the Borta Judgment seems to reaffirm an approach whereby the ECJ is pushing against general rules excluding or restricting teaming and subcontracting, as well as aiming to ensure that, where the contracting authority engages in a case-by-case analysis of the economic operators' capabilities, this is guided by a (strict?) proportionality assessment. In general, this should be a welcome (pro-competitive) direction of development of the case law.

However, the evil is in the detail and there are emerging issues that will require further fine tuning, such as:

• the extent to which the contracting authority can engage in a substantive assessment of the economic operators' teaming or subcontracting arrangements prior to the award of the contract (cf Partner Apelski Dariusz and Ostas celtnieks), as well as the consequences of disputes concerning post-award structuring of their legal or functional relationships; or
• the technical reasons that can justify a prohibition to subcontract specific parts of the work or service (see Wrocław and Borta, but also Hörmann Reisen), in particular where the economic operators have assumed joint and several liability and/or have furnished extensive insurance to the contracting authority; or 
• the extent (and practicalities) of the integration of competition law considerations in the assessment of teaming and subcontracting arrangements by the contracting authorities (eg to avoid situations such as those raised by MT Højgaard and Züblin.

Overall, it seems fair to say that the case law and new rules on exclusion, qualitative selection and subcontracting raise significant practical challenges and that contracting authorities will need to treat lightly (and document extensively) the reasons why they create restrictions on teaming or subcontracting, as well as be ready to provide reasons for these decisions with a view of their administrative or judicial review (specially after the Marina del Mediterráneo Judgment).

Interesting AG Sharpston's Opinion on Lithuanian rules on subcontracting (C-298/15) -- warning on the use & transposition of 63(2) Dir 2014/24 & 79(3) Dir 2014/25?

In her Opinion in Borta, C-298/15, EU:C:2016:921, AG Sharpston assessed, amongst other things, the compatibility with EU law of a prohibition to subcontract part of a public works contract not covered by the relevant EU public procurement directive (in the case, Dir 2004/17). Her assessment thus relies on fundamental rules and general principles of the TFEU (in particular the free movement principles in Articles 49 and 56 TFEU).  

The dispute concerned a Lithuanian tender for the construction of a quay at the port of Klaipėda that ended up in litigation, not least due to a relevant change of participation requirements after the tender had been launched. In my view, the interesting point is that the Supreme Court of Lithuania raised of its own motion the question whether EU public procurement law precludes a provision of Lithuanian law that prohibits subcontracting ‘the main work’ in the context of public works contracts.

This concerns Art 24(5) of the Lithuanian Law on public procurement, according to which the procurement documents require the candidate or tenderer to specify in its tender any proposed subcontractors and may require the candidate or tenderer to specify the share of the contract that it is intended to subcontract to those subcontractors. However, where subcontractors are invited to carry out a works contract, the main work, as specified by the contracting authority, must be performed by the supplier.

Procedural aspects

The admissibility of this referral of its own motion by the Supreme Court of Lithuania could be considered problematic because Art 24(5) of the Law on public procurement was not clearly applicable to the dispute (as stressed in the AGO, C-298/15, para 40). However, AG Sharpston considers that the ECJ has jurisdiction to address the question because 

According to settled case-law, the Court cannot give a ruling on a question referred by a national court where it is quite obvious that the interpretation or the assessment of the validity of a provision of EU law sought by the national court bears no relation to the actual nature of the case or to the subject matter of the main action. That is not however the case here. Paragraph 4.3 of the tender specifications, which lies at the centre of the dispute in the main proceedings, contains an express reference to Article 24(5) of the Law on public procurement. Against that background, it does not appear that [restriction on subcontracting in Article 24(5) of the Law on public procurement] manifestly bears no relation to the actual nature or the subject matter of the action and that question is therefore admissible (AGO, C-298/15, para 41, references omitted and emphasis added).

From a procedural perspective, this is interesting in itself and shows the wide scope for the referral of questions for a preliminary ruling by the ECJ by the highest courts of the Member States even where the clarification of those questions is not core, central or essential to the main dispute. In a different context, this is of relevance for the Brexit litigation before the UK Supreme Court (for discussion see here and here). More generally, the contours of the preliminary reference mechanism seem clearly wide and facilitative of inter-judicial dialogue, as supported by the recently revised Recommendations to national courts and tribunals, in relation to the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings.

Substantive aspects

Moving on to the assessment of the compatibility with EU law of the prohibition to subcontract the main work under Art 24(5) of the Lithuanian Law on public procurement, there is an interesting preliminary point to note:

The Lithuanian Government submitted at the hearing that Article 24(5) of the Law on public procurement transposed the new rule on subcontracting in Article 79(3) of Directive 2014/25/EU before the expiry of the period prescribed for transposing that directive and that, consequently, the Court should examine the present reference from the perspective of that directive only ... The Commission argued that, on the contrary, Directive 2014/25 could not be taken into account. First, Article 24(5) of the Law on public procurement was passed before that directive was adopted. Second, Lithuania had omitted to notify the measures transposing Directive 2014/25 into Lithuanian law to the Commission (AGO, C-298/15, para 25, references omitted).

AG Sharpston is clear in excluding this analytical approach (which may have resulted in a different outcome of the case) on the basis that

As the Court has held recently in relation to Directive 2014/24, to apply that directive before the expiry of the period prescribed for its transposition would prevent not only the Member States but also contracting authorities and economic operators from benefiting from a sufficient period in which to adapt to the new provisions it introduced. ... to do so would also be inconsistent with the principle of legal certainty. The same applies by analogy to Directive 2014/25 (AGO, C-298/15, para 27, references omitted).

Thus, the analysis of the Lithuanian rule had to be carried out in relation with the EU public procurement acquis at the time of launching the tender: ie, Dir 2004/17. However, given that the value of the contract remained below its quantitative thresholds, and in view of the fact that it had cross-border interest (para 37), the rule had to be

examined against the background of the general principles of transparency and equal treatment arising from Articles 49 and 56 TFEU, which must be respected when awarding public contracts. Given that Articles 49 and 56 TFEU apply ... the [contracting authority] is required to respect the prohibition on discrimination on the grounds of nationality and the obligation as to transparency which those articles lay down (AGO, C-298/15, para 38, references omitted).

In carrying out that assessment, AG Sharpston reverted to the general functional approach to the EU regulation of below threshold public procurement:

Articles 49 and 56 TFEU preclude any national measure which, even though it is applicable without discrimination on grounds of nationality, is liable to prohibit, impede or render less attractive the exercise by nationals of the European Union of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services guaranteed by those provisions.

As regards public contracts and the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, the European Union is concerned to ensure the widest possible participation by tenderers in a call for tenders, even where directives on public procurement are not applicable. That is in the interest of the contracting authority itself, which will thus have greater choice as to the most advantageous tender which is most suitable for its needs. One of the principal functions of the principle of the equal treatment of tenderers and the corollary obligation of transparency is thus to ensure the free movement of services and the opening-up of undistorted competition in all the Member States (AGO, C-298/15, paras 43-44, references omitted).

After clarifying that the prohibition to subcontract the main work under Art 24(5) of the Lithuanian Law on public procurement 'restricts the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment' (para 46), she also stressed that 'such a restriction may be justified in so far as it pursues a legitimate objective in the public interest, and to the extent that it complies with the principle of proportionality in that it is suitable for securing the attainment of that objective and does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it' (para 47).

In that connection, it is interesting to note that the AG stresses that one of the elements to be taken into account is that 'the contracting authority is entitled to prohibit the use of subcontractors whose capacities could not be verified during the examination of tenders and selection of the contractor for the performance of essential parts of the contract' (para 49, with reference to Siemens and ARGE Telekom, C‑314/01, EU:C:2004:159, paragraph 45, and Wrocław - Miasto na prawach powiatu, C‑406/14, EU:C:2016:562, paragraph 34--and see here). 

Applying this test, AG Sharpston established that

First, that restriction applies even where the contracting authority is in fact in a position to verify the technical and economic capacity of subcontractors during the contract award procedure. An alternative to that restriction would (for example) have been to require the main contractor to identify subcontractors when submitting his tender and to demonstrate both that he will actually have available to him the resources of those subcontractors necessary for the performance of the contract and that those subcontractors are suitable for carrying out the tasks he intends to entrust to them.

Second, Article 24(5) is also both too rigid and too vague to satisfy the proportionality test. Although contracting authorities appear to enjoy flexibility when defining, for each contract, what ‘the main work’ is, the restriction on subcontracting resulting from that provision is defined in particularly broad terms. It applies regardless of the subject matter of the public works contract and is binding upon contracting authorities when they conclude any type of public works contract, even when they may consider that there is no obvious reason for imposing such a restriction at all.

... the restriction on subcontracting in Article 24(5) of the Law on public procurement differs in that regard from Article 79(3) of Directive 2014/25. That provision merely enables a contracting authority, in particular, to require that certain critical tasks be performed directly by the tenderer itself. Contracting authorities may thus assess whether such a limitation is opportune, depending on the circumstances. It follows that, even if, as the Lithuanian Government submits, Article 24(5) of the Law on public procurement were to be regarded as transposing Article 79(3) of Directive 2014/25 into Lithuanian law, that transposition would be incorrect.

For those reasons ... in the context of a public contract not subject to Directive 2004/17 or Directive 2004/18, but which has a clear cross-border interest, the prohibition on discrimination on the grounds of nationality and the obligation of transparency which arise under Articles 49 and 56 TFEU preclude a national rule such as that contained in Article 24(5) of the Law on public procurement, under which the tenderer has itself to carry out the ‘main work’, as identified by the contracting authority, without it being possible to subcontract that part of the contract (AGO, C-298/15, paras 51-54, references omitted and emphasis added).

This is interesting because, even if Dir 2014/25 (and 2014/24) was not relevant to the case, it indicates the direction in which a proportionality assessment of the rule in Art 79(3) Dir 2014/25 and Art 63(2) Dir 2014/24--as transposed into domestic law and as applied by contracting authorities--is likely to be carried out in the future [with a view to minimise their scope, which I would favour, see A Sanchez-Graells, Public Procurement and the EU Competition Rules, 2nd edn (Oxford, Hart, 2015) 353-354].