Transposing Directives no longer so discretionary! The Court of Justice forces transposition of discretionary exclusion grounds and hints at ‘intra-State’ vertical direct effect (C‑66/22)

** This comment was first published as an Op-Ed for EU Law Live on 8 December 2022 (see formatted version). I am reposting it here in case of broader interest. **

On the face of it, in Infraestruturas de Portugal and Futrifer Indústrias Ferroviárias (C-66/22), the Court of Justice had to assess whether Member States can limit the exclusion of competition law violators from participation in tenders for public contracts to cases where the national competition authority has previously imposed such debarment as an ancillary penalty. While this is a plausible transposition approach that seeks to centralise competition law analysis under the control of the specialist administrative authority, it can also reduce the effectiveness of procurement mechanisms seeking to preserve (much needed) competition for public contracts. It is thus fair enough to test the boundaries of the discretion that contracting authorities can retain in this context. However, in Infraestruturas, the Court of Justice did two other things that are potentially significant beyond the narrower field of procurement governance. First, the Court reversed its previous case law and established that Member States are (no longer) allowed not to transpose discretionary exclusion grounds. This says something (but I am not too sure what) about the more general level of discretion that Member States retain in the transposition of (prescriptively worded) Directives into their national systems under Art 288 TFEU. Second, the Court furthered a line of reasoning that comes to assign ‘individual rights’ to contracting authorities—that is, entities within the public sector—in what could seem like the creation of an ‘intra-State’ modality of vertical direct effect. In this Op-Ed, I try to make some sense of these two developments and leave aside for now the details of the interpretation of the specific grounds for the exclusion of economic operators under Directive 2014/24/EU.

No longer discretionary to transpose discretionary exclusion grounds

It is trite EU law that, under Art 288 TFEU, Member States retain discretion in the choice of form and methods for the transposition of a Directive. While Directives can be prescriptive about their aims and goals and, sometimes, about specific modes of protection of the relevant legal interest, there seems to be a (theoretical) agreement that Directives still (must) leave a margin of discretion to Member States—else, they surreptitiously shapeshift into Regulations. Such discretion would seem to cover in particular those elements of a Directive that are explicitly labelled as discretionary. This ‘orthodoxy’ seemed to be straightforwardly applied by the Court of Justice in the analysis of the constraints on the transposition of the Public Procurement Directive 2014/24.

The Public Procurement Directive contains a set of rules on the exclusion from tenders for public contracts of economic operators that have fallen short of their legal obligations. In Art. 57, in addition to setting rules applicable to all exclusion decisions, the Directive distinguishes between, on the one hand, mandatory exclusion grounds that require contracting authorities to exclude economic operators convicted by final judgment for one of a series of breaches (Art. 57(1)) and, on the other hand, discretionary exclusion grounds that allow contracting authorities to exclude the affected economic operators (Art. 57(4)). Member States are explicitly allowed to turn discretionary exclusion grounds mandatory under their transposing legislation. Conversely, until now, the Court had been clear that Member States were allowed not to transpose discretionary exclusion grounds. So far, so good.

In Infraestruturas, however, the Court of Justice U-turned. It stated that:

… the first subparagraph of Article 57(4) of Directive 2014/24 … states that ‘contracting authorities may exclude or may be required by Member States to exclude any economic operator from participation in a procurement procedure’ in any of the situations referred to in points (a) to (i) of that provision.

In that connection, it admittedly follows from certain judgments of the Court … that the Member States can decide whether or not to transpose the facultative grounds for exclusion referred to in that provision. The Court has in fact held that … the Member States are free not to apply the facultative grounds for exclusion set out in that directive or to incorporate them into national law with varying degrees of rigour according to legal, economic or social considerations prevailing at national level (see, to that effect, judgments of 19 June 2019, Meca, C‑41/18, EU:C:2019:507, paragraph 33; of 30 January 2020, Tim, C‑395/18, EU:C:2020:58, paragraphs 34 and 40; and of 3 June 2021, Rad Service and Others, C‑210/20, EU:C:2021:445, paragraph 28).

However, an analysis of the wording of the first subparagraph of Article 57(4) of Directive 2014/24, the context into which that provision fits, and the aim that the latter pursues within the framework of that directive, shows that contrary to what is apparent from those judgments, the Member States are under the obligation to transpose that provision into their national law (C-66/22, paras. 48-50, emphases added).

In my view, this U-turn challenges the ‘orthodoxy’ to the extent that the Court subjects the margin of discretion left to the Member States by the EU legislators to the Court’s assessment of whether what is clearly labelled as discretionary—and was as such treated in earlier case law—is permissibly left to the discretion of the Member States in view of the aims of the Directive. I think that this introduces a potentially tricky line of challenge of the content of EU Directives on the grounds that the EU legislators could not have left to the Member States’ discretion specific aspects of their content without undermining the goals of the Directive itself. This can ultimately constrain the upstream discretion in the choice of legal instrument under Art 288 TFEU by the EU legislators themselves, and further erode the distinction between Regulations and Directives if the content of the Directives can in fact eventually be binding in their entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Further, this U-turn is based on a rather peculiar interpretation of the wording of the Public Procurement Directive that comes to assign ‘individual rights’ to the public sector. Given this peculiarity, I am not too sure whether the deviation from the orthodoxy in Infraestruturas indicates a significant shift by the Court of Justice or ‘just’ an exception or oddity that may confirm the general rule.

‘Intra-State’ vertical direct effect?

In justifying its U-turn, the Court of Justice stresses that, under Art. 57(4) of the Public Procurement Directive:

… the choice as to the decision whether or not to exclude an economic operator from a public procurement procedure on one of the grounds set out in that provision falls to the contracting authority, unless the Member States decide to transform that option to exclude into an obligation to do so. Accordingly, the Member States must transpose that provision either by allowing or by requiring contracting authorities to apply the exclusion grounds laid down by the latter provision. … a Member State cannot omit those grounds from its national legislation transposing Directive 2014/24 and thus deprive contracting authorities of the possibility – which must, at the very least, be conferred on them by virtue of that provision – of applying those grounds.

… it should be noted that recital 101 of that directive states that ‘contracting authorities should … be given the possibility to exclude economic operators which have proven unreliable’. That recital thus confirms that a Member State must transpose that provision in order not to deprive contracting authorities of the possibility referred to in the preceding paragraph and that recital.

…

Lastly, as to the objective pursued by Directive 2014/24 in so far as concerns the facultative grounds for exclusion, the Court has acknowledged that that objective is reflected in the emphasis placed on the powers of contracting authorities. Thus the EU legislature intended to confer on the contracting authority, and on it alone, the task of assessing whether a candidate or tenderer must be excluded from a procurement procedure during the stage of selecting the tenderers (see, to that effect, judgments of 19 June 2019, Meca, C‑41/18, EU:C:2019:507, paragraph 34, and of 3 October 2019, Delta Antrepriză de Construcţii şi Montaj 93, C‑267/18, EU:C:2019:826, paragraph 25).

The option, or indeed obligation, for the contracting authority to apply the exclusion grounds set out in the first subparagraph of Article 57(4) of Directive 2014/24 is specifically intended to enable it to assess the integrity and reliability of each of the economic operators participating in a public procurement procedure.

The EU legislature thus intended to ensure that contracting authorities have, in all Member States, the possibility of excluding economic operators who are regarded as unreliable by those authorities (C-66/22, paras. 51-52 and 55-57, emphases added).

Even if not altogether new—see Meca (C-41/18) and Delta (C-267/18)—I find this line of reasoning puzzling. The way the Court of Justice has interpreted Art. 57(4) of the Public Procurement Directive equates to an ‘individual right’ for contracting authorities not to contract with economic operators they deem unreliable and, crucially, this is an ‘individual right’ that Member States cannot deprive them from. The protection of such right implies an ‘intra-State’ modality of vertical direct effect—at least to the extent that, after Infraestruturas, a contracting authority of any Member State with centralised exclusion decision-making can challenge any constraints on its administrative discretion and simply set aside the domestic rules and directly rely on the Directive to proceed to exclusion on the basis of discretionary grounds.

To my mind, this line of reasoning extracts the wrong implications from the wording of the Directive because of the quasi-anthropomorphism of contracting authorities. Given that the Directive conceptualises contracting authorities as the relevant unit of decision-making, references to contracting authorities should be seen as references to decisions within a procurement procedure, not as references to agents that derive rights independently from—or even against—the structure of the State into which they are embedded. In the end, contracting authorities are defined as ‘the State, regional or local authorities, bodies governed by public law or associations formed by one or more such authorities or one or more such bodies governed by public law’ (Art. 2(1)(1) Directive 2014/24). A functional interpretation of the wording of Article 57(4) of the Public Procurement Directive would recognise that the meaning of ‘contracting authorities may exclude or may be required by Member States to exclude’ is that ‘in a covered procurement procedure, it is permissible to exclude, and it can be made mandatory to exclude’—which would then straightforwardly follow the orthodoxy in allowing Member States to exercise the discretion on the form and method of transposition of that possibility.

I submit that the Court of Justice has followed a line of reasoning that is also problematic in relation to other provisions of the Public Procurement Directive, in particular in relation to the potential effects it could have in ‘empowering’ contracting authorities to take courses of action (eg international collaboration) that could imply domestic ultra vires.

Final thoughts

What I find most confusing in this part of the Infraestruturas Judgment is that the Court could have found much less disruptive and confusing ways to reach the same conclusion. For example, it could have found that, in empowering the national competition authority to make decisions on the exclusion of tenderers through the imposition of ancillary penalties, Portugal had decided to transpose the relevant discretionary exclusion ground, but done so incorrectly or defectively by simultaneously transposing the ground but limiting the discretion of the contracting authority. I would still find issue with that approach, but at least it would be easier to reconcile with important parts of the orthodoxy of fundamental aspects of EU law.

First thoughts on the Commission's bid rigging exclusion guidance -- what difference will it make?

On 18 March 2021, the European Commission officially published its Notice on tools to fight collusion in public procurement and on guidance on how to apply the related exclusion ground (the ‘bid rigging exclusion guidance’). This document has been a long time in the making and officially announced almost four years ago, so it is no exaggeration to say that it was keenly awaited (by competition and procurement geeks like yours truly, at least).

The guidance is clearly addressed to contracting authorities — not economic operators — and is distinctly ‘pro exclusion’ in its minimisation of the practical difficulties and legal constraints inherent in the adoption of exclusion decisions. However, even with such clearly programmatic orientation, after a first reading, I have a few thoughts that do not make for an optimistic assessment of the guidance’s likely practical impact.

Mostly, because I do not think the Commission’s bid rigging exclusion guidance provides much by way of actionable practical advice to contracting authorities—and it certainly does not really go beyond already existing guidance, such as the OECD’s 2009 guidelines for fighting bid rigging in public procurement. By contrast with more general documents e.g. the OECD guidance, the Commission’s bid rigging exclusion guidance intends to concentrate on the possibility to exclude operators engaged in the manipulation of a tender. However, it includes lenghty discussion of measures to prevent collusion, as well as complementary measures such as training and data analysis and, when it comes to the specific issues that the interpretation and application of Art 57(4)(d) of Dir 2014/24/EU generates, it is mainly restricted to setting out issues that Member States’ domestic legislation cannot do — rather than focusing on what contracting authorities can (and should) do.

Moreover, its likely limited practical impact results from the fact that the guidance simply ignores that the EU rules (especially discretionary ones) need to be embedded in the Member States’ administrative/public law system and, in many places, the guidance is at odds with the latter. In that regard, the guidance seems to presume a sort of sphere of subjective rights for contracting authorities that they are capable of exercising even against the decisions of other (superior/centralised) administrative authorities, or in disregard of broader constraints and requirements for administrative action—such as burden of proof, the duty to state reasons, the increasing enforceability of exclusion grounds against other tenderers, or the very practical implications of risking damages compensation for unlawful exclusion—which is (as far as I know) an area of constant interest for tenderers and practitioners alike.

To be fair, this in part follows from the stance of the Court of Justice in some recent cases (referred to in the guidance), but that is still no excuse for the Commission’s guidance not to recognise that Member States retain significant discretion in their administrative self-organisation and that some of the issues raised in the practical implementation of the relevant provisions will be conditioned by pre-existing administrative law doctrines and procedures.

The most glaring example of this approach that sidesteps the difficulties in the domestic implementation of EU procurement law is the fact that the guidance simply states that ‘The possibility to exclude an economic operator for suspected collusion is not construed in the Directive as a penalty for its behaviour before or during the award procedure’ (section 5.2). That is at face value fine. But the Directive also does not say that exclusion is not a penalty or a sanction and, consequently, establishing the legal nature of an exclusion will be dependent on the relevant public/administrative law framework at Member State level. Moreover, exclusion has been framed as a penalty in at least one recent preliminary reference and the Court of Justice has not disabused the referring court from that prima facie legal classification (see eg Tim, C-395/18, EU:C:2020:58). Given the increasing relevance of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the interpretation of economic operators’ rights in the context of procurement litigation, I think it is far from certain that exclusion will not be construed as a (quasi)penalty, in particular when it is grounded on the infringement of prohibitive legal rules (such as Art 101 TFEU), rather than on shortcomings in the standing of the economic operator or non-compliance of its tender with substantive and formal requirements included in the tender documents.

To my mind, this (ie the nature of exclusion measures) can be one of the thorniest interpretive issues in this area, particularly because of the due process implications of exclusion being treated as a penalty or sanction—which is also not helped by the absence in the Remedies Directive of any procedural requirements applicable to the exclusion stage. The perpetuation of this disconnect with the Member States’ administrative law framework can in itself constitute the quicksands where the bid rigging exclusion guidance disappears, and certainly can continue to prevent an adequate use of the possibility to exclude tenderers suspected of bid rigging, because the fundamental issues raised by Art 57(4)(d) Dir 2014/24/EU remain unresolved — coupled with other sweeping statements concerning e.g. the level of demonstrability of the suspected collusion that contracting authorities need to meet (as discussed below).

For these and the reasons given below, I am afraid that the bid rigging exclusion guidance will not leave up to the expectations. I will carry out a more detailed and formal assessment of the guidance in a future research paper (likely after my shared parental leave… so not until mid summer or so), but here are my further initial observations, which do not attempt to be comprehensive.

Framing the issue

For those interested in understanding how to interpret and apply Art 57(4)(d) and the associated Art 57(6) self-cleaning possibilities, only section 5 and the Annex of the bid rigging exclusion guidance will be relevant. Indeed, the bid rigging exclusion guidance includes a rather lengthy explanation of what the Commission has done and what it expects to do (or for Member States to do) in the broader area of professionalisation and promotion of collaboration between competition and procurement authorities, which makes the document not very practical. This raises some questions on the fitness for purpose of the document, and whether alternative guidance format that had discharged most of sections 1 to 4 onto a different policy document would have been preferable, but perhaps this is mostly just presentational.

One of the most welcome aspects of the bid rigging exclusion guidance is that, in section 5.2, it makes it clear that the ground for exclusion based on suspected ‘contemporaneous’ collusion (or bid rigging) in Article 57(4)(d) of Directive 2014/24/EU is separate from (and compatible with) the possibility of excluding infringers of competition law as economic operators ‘guilty of grave professional misconduct’ under Article 57(4)(c). It is also to be welcome that, also in section 5.2, the Commission shares the view that, despite the different wording of Art 57(4)(d) and Art 101 TFEU, the former needs to be interpreted in a Treaty-consistent manner, which means that the exclusion must be possible for all types of behaviours caught by Art 101 TFEU — notably, concerted practices and decisions by associations of undertakings, in addition to agreements [for discussion, and advancing the positions now confirmed by the guidance, see A Sanchez-Graells, Public Procurement and the EU Competition Rules (2nd edn, Hart 2015) 296 ff].

The Commission also rightly stresses that contracting authorities in principle retain discretion not to exclude economic operators suspected of bid rigging, as the exclusion ground in Art 57(4)(d) is discretionary. However, this obviates not only the possibility for Member States to transpose it as a mandatory exclusion ground, but also more general EU law duties (such as the duty not to deprive Art 101 TFEU of its effet utile), and domestic administrative law duties (such as equivalent duties not to promote or tolerate illegal activity, or duties mandating inter-administrative collaboration with competition authorities). In that regard, the bid rigging exclusion guidance could have usefully developed a checklist of reasons that could (objectively) justify not excluding economic operators despite there being sufficiently plausible indications to conclude that the economic operator had entered into agreements with other economic operators aimed at distorting competition. In the end, it will not (or should not) be entirely up to the contracting authority to decide to turn a blind eye on those indicia.

Lack of practical guidance, or guidance that is impractical

Despite the largely correct framing of the issue, and despite acknowledging that tackling bid rigging in procurement is fraught with difficulties, the bid rigging exclusion guidance fails to deliver the much needed practical orientations on how to identify contemporaneous bid rigging and how to apply (as opposed to interpret) the relevant exclusion ground of Art 57(4)(d) Dir 2014/24.

The guidance does not really provide practical tips on how to identify bid rigging in a single tender scenario (which is the most likely to be faced by most contracting authorities). If indications of the existence of bid rigging that require cross-sectional or time series analysis are left to one side (as those are generally not for contracting authorities, but rather for competition authorities to screen for and analyse), and with the exception of flagging as suspicious unexpected tender withdrawals (annex, section 3), the only indications highlighted in the guidance (section 5.3) are:

• The text of the tenders (for instance, the same typos or phrases in different tenders or comments left by mistake in the text of the tender indicating collusion among tenderers).

• The prices offered in the award procedure (for instance, tenderers who ... offer excessively high or low prices) [although the interaction of this with the rules on abnormally low tenders is not explored]

• Administrative details (for instance, tenders submitted by the same business representative)

This is then slightly expanded in the annex (section 3), which details indicia such as:

• Identical mistakes or spelling errors in different tenders.

• Different tenders drafted with similar handwriting [in 2021!] or typeface [except default in most commonly used software applications, one would hope!].

• Tenders using another tenderer’s letterhead or contact details.

• Different tenders with identical miscalculations or identical methodologies to estimate the cost of certain items.

• Tenders submitted by the same person or with persons having the same contact details.

This can only help contracting authorities identify clumsy economic operators, potentially involved in collusion. However, in all seriousness, this is unlikely to result in much practical results as once these types of issues are included in official guidelines, it is likely that economic operators will make sure to avoid those mistakes when thy submit rigged bids [for discussion, in the context of automated treatment of bids, see A Sanchez-Graells, '"Screening for Cartels" in Public Procurement: Cheating at Solitaire to Sell Fool’s Gold?' (2019) 10(4) Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 199–211].

The guidance also incurs in temporal inconsistencies, such as when it uses as an indication of bid rigging that contracting authorities should take into account for the purposes of exclusion: ‘The selected tenderer subcontracting work to unsuccessful tenderers for the same contract or the selected tenderer not accepting to sign the contract and later found to be a subcontractor of the tenderer that is finally awarded the contract may be considered sufficiently plausible indications of collusion’ (annex). This can well be an indication of bid rigging, but at this stage no exclusion can take place because the contract will have been awarded. Consequently, the relevant consequence here should be reporting this issue to the competition authority as well as, where possible, terminating the contract (which is not, however, explicitly foreseen in the Directive).

The guidance is also somewhat naive or flippant, for example in its remarks concerning the contracting authority’s (potential) knowledge that a tenderer ‘has pre-ordered the material needed to perform the specific contract in question well before the evaluation of the tenders is concluded’. Quite how a contracting authority would get to this knowledge, or how specific the pre-order should be for it not to be susceptible of confusion with just a standard supply of the economic operators is anybody’s guess.

It can also generate confusion when it, on the one hand, recommends resorting to centralised procurement as a way of avoiding collusion and, on the other, stresses that framework agreements managed by central purchasing bodies are more susceptible to collusion than ordinary tender procedures (annex, section 2).

Moreover, the guidance lacks detail in crucial aspects and, in particular, concerning the extremely complex analysis of joint tenders and subcontracting among (potential) competitors (section 5.6). Here, the Commission’s guidance does not even cross-refer to the more detailed guidelines published by some Member States’ competition authorities — notably, the Danish Competition and Consumers Authority. Similarly, the guidance largely brushes over the complex issue of multiple participation by economic operators belonging to the same corporate group (section 5.5), and also sets aside the difficulties of deciding the scope of application of exclusion decisions that need to respect the doctrine of the single economic entity under competition law [for discussion, see K Kuzma and W Hartung, Combating Collusion in Public Procurement (Elgar, 2020)].

Let’s ignore the administrative legal framework

The Commission’s bid rigging exclusion guidance largely ignores the administrative legal framework at Member State level. This is not only in relation to the treatment of exclusion as (not) a penalty, but also in relation to evidentiary requirements and the related duty to provide reasons. In that regard, the literal interpretation of the Directive leading to the conclusion that ‘national rules should comply with both the letter and the spirit of the Directive, which requires only “indications” of participating in illegal agreements that distort competition in an award procedure and not formal evidence, such as a court judgment confirming such participation’ (section 5.4) is misleading and conflates the need for a prior administrative or judicial decision with the existence of ‘evidence’ of collusion.

First, the guidance is right to exclude the need for a previous administrative or judicial decision, but that should not be treated as excluding ‘evidence’ of collusion, but rather as a precedent decision that has the effects of (quasi) res iudicata or, at least, constitutes a legal fact that the contracting authority cannot ignore. It is also wrong to indicate that ‘plausible indications’ of collusion include, for example, ‘information brought to the attention of the contracting authority of an investigation launched by the competition authority or of penal charges brought against the management of the operator for suspected collusion either in the pending award procedure or in other award procedures’, as this raises fundamental issues concerning the presumption of inocence (which treatment will also differ across jurisdictions, depending on e.g. the trigger for the opening of an administrative investigation). Here the guidance makes the reverse mistake of conflating a formal decision with the evidence (presumably) underpinning it.

Second, the guidance ignores the legal meaning of ‘evidence’ when it establishes that ‘contracting authorities are not required to have evidence of collusion in a pending award procedure, as this would contradict the letter of the Directive’. ‘Plausible indicia’ are a type of evidence, falling short of direct (uncontrovertible) evidence, but clearly above the absence of evidence. This should have been clear from the excerpt that the guidance quotes, where the CJEU stressed that ‘anti-competitive behaviour, “may be proved not only by direct evidence, but also through indicia, provided that they are objective and consistent and that the related tenderers are in a position to submit evidence in rebuttal”’ (Specializuotas transportas, C-531/16, EU:C:2018:324, paragraph 37).

Indiciary evidence is still evidence and the unresolved problem is where to draw the line to decide that the contracting authority has enough evidentiary support to adopt an exclusion decision. Moreover, this is of paramount relevance to the adequate discharge of the duty to state reasons. Here, it not only is impossible for a contracting authority to act in the absence of evidence, but the administrative file will usually be accessible to the economic operator for the purposes of its legal defence. This makes the further recommendation for contracting authorities not to disclose to economic operators that they suspect the existence of bid rigging largely impractical, as the contracting authority will only be able to keep this under wraps up to the point where it must make a formal decision and notification to the economic operator affected by the (potential) exclusion.

Some problematic statements

Unfortunately, in addition to the shortcomings stressed above (and some others), the guidance includes some unhelpful statements concerning the interpretation and application of Art 57(7) of Directive 2014/24/EU, in particular when it states that ‘If an economic operator, who has been excluded from award procedures for a certain period under Article 57(7) of the Directive, submits a tender during the period of exclusion, the contracting authority, without any further need for assessment, must automatically reject that tender’ (section 5.9), and when it reiterates that ‘It goes without saying that if the economic operator has been excluded from all award procedures in your country for a period of time and submits a tender during this period, you must exclude it from your award procedure without assessing the tender submitted.’ (section 3 of Annex) (both emphases added).

These statements are, at best, confusing and misleading and, at worse, legally incorrect. In that regard, it should be stressed that Art 57(6) Dir 2014/24/EU is very clear that the conditions for lengthy exclusions stipulated by Member States in the implementation of Art 57(7) are to be applied ‘if no measures as specified in paragraph 6 are taken by the economic operator to demonstrate its reliability’. Therefore, the statements above should have made it clear that further assessment is required and contracting authorities must carry it out where an economic operator, who has been excluded from award procedures for a certain period under Article 57(7) of the Directive, submits a tender during the period of exclusion and it claims to have implemented the sort of measures detailed in Art 57(6).

This is the sort of problematic drafting that should be avoided in official guidance and, in this instance, rectified by the Commission as soon as possible.

Final thoughts

On the whole, a first reading of the guidance does not call for optimism. While the Commission’s bid rigging exclusion guidance does contain some useful information, it is at its weakest in relation to the particularities of the interpretation and application of Art 57(4)(d) and related provisions of Directive 2014/24/EU, which are supposed to constitute its core concentration.

I would not be surprised if contracting authorities found little to no comfort in the guidance when pondering how to address the key issue of how to spot collusion in single-tender settings, how to decide if there are sufficient plausible indications, and how to go about the adoption of an exclusion decision that is, in almost all likelihood, going to be challenged on the basis that it constitutes a sanction/penalty for a (suspected) breach of competition law that the contracting authority has no competence to enforce, or which has not followed the heightened procedural requirements of procedures leading to the imposition of a sanction. It should be obvious that exclusion on these grounds generates the additional risk of a follow-on investigation by the competition authority and/or private litigation, so no economic operator should be expected to just accept an exclusion on grounds of contemporaneous bid rigging under Art 57(4)(d) Dir 2014/24/EU (or, rather, its domestic transposition).

I will continue reflecting on the guidance and its implications, and I am sure there will be a lively debate in the months and years to come. As always, any feedback and comments will be most welcome.

Interesting short paper on public procurement and competition law: Blažo (2015)

Reading O Blažo, 'Public Procurement Directive and Competition Law - Really United in Diversity?' (2015), I have found some interesting and thought-provoking remarks on the impact of public procurement regulation over the effectiveness of competition law enforcement. The paper focuses 'mainly on three problematic issues: participation of companies of the same economic group in public procurement procedure, disqualification for cartel infringement, attractiveness of leniency programme'.

Multiple bidding by members of an economic group

Blažo's discussion of the issue of multiple participation by companies of the same economic group discusses Assitur (C-538/07, EU:C:2009:317), where the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) declared contrary to EU public procurement law an Italian rule not allowing companies linked by a relationship of control or significant influence to participate, as competing tenderers, in the same procedure for the award of a public contract. The CJEU determined that, 'while pursuing legitimate objectives of equality of treatment of tenderers and transparency in procedures for the award of public contracts, [a national rule that] lays down an absolute prohibition on simultaneous and competing participation in the same tendering procedure by undertakings linked by a relationship of control or affiliated to one another, without allowing them an opportunity to demonstrate that that relationship did not influence their conduct in the course of that tendering procedure' is incompatible with EU public procurement law (para 33, emphasis added). 

Blažo considers that this 'appears as “over-regulation” and “under-regulation” [at] the same time in his context: it does not solve problem of participation of several companies forming of one economic group in one tender procedure and on the other hand outlaws their automatic exclusion'. I would disagree with this critical assessment and submit that the CJEU reached a good balance of competing interests (ie ensuring sufficient intra-tender competition vs avoiding collusion or manipulation risks). As I wrote in Public procurement and the EU competition rules, 2nd edn (Oxford, Hart, 2015) 341-342 (references omitted): 

the grounds for exclusion based on professional qualities of the tenderers—and the existence of relationships of control between them, or their control structure, is clearly a professional quality—are exhaustively listed in article 57 of Directive 2014/24, which precludes Member States or contracting authorities from adding other grounds for exclusion based on criteria relating to professional qualities of the candidate or tenderer, such as professional honesty, solvency and economic and financial capacity. Nevertheless, it does not preclude the option for Member States to maintain or adopt substantive rules designed, in particular, to ensure, in the field of public procurement, observance of the principle of equal treatment and of the principle of transparency. Given that the extension of the ban on multiple bidding has as its clear rationale the prevention of discrimination between self-standing entities and those integrated in group structures, prima facie it seems to constitute a case of permitted additional ground for the exclusion of tenderers not regulated by article 57 of Directive 2014/24.

However, as also noted, when establishing these additional grounds for the exclusion of tenderers, Member States must comply with the principle of proportionality and the automatic exclusion of tenderers for the sole fact of belonging to the same legal group seems to be in breach of this latter requirement. Interestingly, EU case law seems to be moving in the direction of restricting the scope of this type of (extended) prohibition by outlawing the automatic exclusion from tendering procedures of tenderers between which there exists a relationship of control (as defined by national law) without giving them an opportunity to prove that, in the circumstances of the case, that relationship had not led to an infringement of the principles of equal treatment of tenderers and of transparency.

This would be in line with the rules applicable to the treatment of conflicts of interest (art 24 Dir 2014/24), which only justify the exclusion of candidates and tenderers ‘where a conflict of interest … cannot be effectively remedied by other less intrusive measures’ (art 57(4)(e) Dir 2014/24). 

Exclusion of competition law infringers, Self-cleaning & impact on the attractiveness of leniency programmes

Interestingly, Blažo explains that, under the version of Slovak procurement law prior to the transposition of Dir 2014/24, contracting authorities were bound to exclude tenderers that had been convicted of infringements of competition law [on this, see Generali-Providencia Biztosító, C-470/13, EU:C:2014:2469, and discussion here], but 'undertaking[s] who successfully qualified for the leniency program (immunity as well as fine
reduction)' were not excluded from participation in public procurement procedures. Or, in more detail, 'The scheme excluding entrepreneurs who have been convicted of a cartel in public procurement applies automatically, therefore there is no need to issue any other disqualification decision. It is also a compulsory system, thus the contracting authority authority shall be obliged to exclude such an undertaking ex officio, and the law does not allow any way to alleviate such sanctions. Only the undertaking who takes part in an agreement restricting competition in public procurement can avoid exclusion from public procurement, its cooperation with the Antimonopoly Office in leniency program' (Blažo, p. 1494).

Blažo then goes on to assess the changes that the transposition of Dir 2014/24 will require [in particular, art 57(4)(d) on the exclusion of competition law infringers and art 57(6) on self-cleaning, for discussion, see here and A Sanchez-Graells, 'Exclusion, Qualitative Selection and Short-listing', in F Lichère, R Caranta & S Treumer (eds), Modernising Public Procurement. The New Directive, vol. 6 European Procurement Law Series (Copenhagen, DJØF, 2014) 97-129], noting that 'the directive does not expressly mention leniency program as an exemption from exclusion'; and, in particular, criticises the fact that Art 57(7) requires that Member States 'shall, in particular, determine the maximum period of exclusion if no [self-cleaning] measures ... are taken by the economic operator to demonstrate its reliability. Where the period of exclusion has not been set by final judgment, that period shall not exceed ... three years from the date of the relevant event in the cases referred to in paragraph 4'. In view of this, Blažo concludes that

If the contracting entity wishes to establish an infringement using a final decision of competition authority (or judgment dismissing the action against such a decision), it is almost unrealistic to have these documents available within three years from the infringement, or the time for which the undertaking can be excluded from public procurement will be very short. It is obvious that word-by-word transposition of the PPD into Slovak legal order eliminates current patterns punishment of undertakings for bid rigging and replaces it with a system that does not constitute a sufficient threat of sanctions, which would have preventive effects against cartels in public procurement. Furthermore even in case of effective application of this system, it may discourage leniency applicants and thus undermine effective public enforcement of competition law (p. 1495).

I share some of his concerns about the difficulty of establishing appropriate timeframes for exclusion based on competition law infringements. As I pointed out in Public procurement and the EU competition rules, 2nd edn (2015) 291:

This raises the issue of how to compute the maximum duration, particularly in the case of article 57(4) violations, as the reference to the ‘relevant event’ admits different interpretations (ie, either from the moment of the relevant violation, or the moment in which the contracting authority is aware of it or can prove it). Given that some of the violations may take time to identify (eg, emergence of a previous bid rigging conspiracy that can be tackled under art 57(4)(c) Dir 2014/24), a possibilistic interpretation will be necessary to avoid reducing the effectiveness of these exclusion grounds. In any case, compliance with domestic administrative rules will be fundamental.

However, I am not sure that I share the concerns about the effectiveness of leniency programmes and their attractiveness for undertakings that may risk exclusion from procurement procedures. First, I am generally sceptical of the claim that leniency programmes need to be protected at all costs (see here, here and here). Second, and looking specifically at the worry that not having a mention to leniency programmes in Dir 2014/24 may exclude or reduce the possibility for contracting authorities (or Member States) to treat leniency applicants favourably in the procurement context, I am not sure that this is the case, mainly, because it would still seem possible for competition rules to foresee that any final decisions declaring the infringement of competition law should not include sanctions concerning debarment from public procurement procedures for leniency applicants (I am not convinced that this is desirable, but it is certainly possible). In that case, there would be no final judgment from which the exclusion could derive and, consequently, contracting authorities intending to exclude the leniency applicant in view of its previous infringement of competition law would be using their discretion to exclude without the constraints derived from the previous decision. This has a significant impact in terms of self-cleaning.

While Art 57(6) in fine foresees that 'An economic operator which has been excluded by final judgment from participating in procurement ... shall not be entitled to make use of the [self-cleaning] possibility ... during the period of exclusion resulting from that judgment in the Member States where the judgment is effective' [something I criticised in 'Exclusion, Qualitative Selection and Short-listing' (2014) 113], this restriction does not apply in the absence of a final judgment imposing the exclusion. Thus, the successful leniency applicant would still be able to rely on its leniency application and collaboration with the competition authority in order to claim it has complied with the requirements of the self-cleaning provisions in Art 57(6) Dir 2014/24. The sticky point would be the need to 'prove that it has paid or undertaken to pay compensation in respect of any damage caused by the ... misconduct'. Of course, this takes us back to the claim that leniency programmes will not be attractive if, in addition to exempting the applicant from the competition fine that would otherwise be applicable (let's remember it can be up to 10% of its turnover), they do not also shield competition law infringers from claims for damages--and now public procurement debarment. As mentioned, I am highly sceptical of these claims and, from a normative perspective, I am not persuaded that leniency should come at such high cost.

In any case, these are interesting issues and it would be very relevant to engage in empirical research to see if the entry into force of Dir 2014/24 last month actually has an impact on the effectiveness of leniency programmes in the EU.