Short comments on the proposed regulation on foreign subsidies distorting the internal market, as it relates to procurement

The European Commission is currently consulting on its recent Proposal for a Regulation on foreign subsidies distorting the internal market (COM(2021) 223 final, 5 May 2021). The public consultation will be open until 15 July 2021. I have just submitted my views on chapter four of the proposal, which concerns the rules for the analysis of foreign subsidies distorting tenders for contracts with a value above €250 million. The feedback form only allows for 4,000-character submissions, so here are mine. As always, comments welcome: a.sanchez-graells@bristol.ac.uk.

The proposed Regulation on foreign subsidies distorting the internal market (RFSDIT) is both (1) undesirable and (2) problematic, in particular as it concerns the investigation of foreign subsidies linked to public procurement procedures. The following is limited to chapter 4.

1. Primarily, ch 4 RFSDIT is undesirable because it adds a layer of scrutiny and red tape that will affect high-value tenders submitted by tenderers from jurisdictions that have either signed up to the WTO Government Procurement Agreement, or that have a plurilateral or bilateral trade agreement covering procurement with the EU. Tenderers from other jurisdictions can already be excluded on the basis of the current rules (see Art 25 Dir 2014/24; Art 43 Dir 2014/25), as emphasised in the Commission's 2019 guidance on the participation of third-country bidders and goods in the EU procurement market. First, the (inadvertent) targeting of GPA- or FTA-originated tenders is in itself undesirable on trade policy terms and could erode third countries' bilateral relationships with the EU within the GPA framework, as well as under the relevant FTA (or the UK TCA) even if those already include subsidy-related provisions. Second, it is also undesirable due to the technical shortcomings of the proposal, as below, as there could be a basis for claims of unequal treatment concerning the non-scrutiny of EU-originated tenders that are tainted by illegal State aid. Finally, it is also undesirable because the ex ante nature of ch 4 screening can dissuade economic operators from participating in public tenders even if they think that subsidies they have received could overcome the tests in Arts 3-5 RFSDIT. Recipients of foreign subsidies may rather forgo their chances of being awarded a public contract than trigger an investigation they could avoid under the general motu proprio regime. Such loss of international competition is to the EU public buyers' detriment.

2. Ch 4 RFSDIT is also highly problematic because of its incompatibility with the mechanisms in the EU procurement Directives, as well as the inconsistency of approach with the rest of the chapters in the RFSDIT. First, the proposed rules are incompatible with the trigger for an investigation of the distortive effects of State aid granted to an EU-based tenderer, which derives from the prima facie abnormally low character of its tender (ALT) (see Art 69 Dir 2014/24). EU-generated non-ALT bids are not screened for receipt of (illegal) State aid, even if they can be 'winning tenders' in a given procedure. As above, this can trigger claims of discrimination against non-EU generated tenders. Second, procurement case law pre-empts tenderers from offering commitments related to the tender at hand to the Commission's satisfaction without materially altering their tenders. Such changes would be impermissible under EU procurement law. This is an inescapable limit, which is partly but insufficiently acknowledged in Art 30(1) RFSDIT. This means that any tender where the Commission found an unbalanced distortion of the internal market would lead to the inevitable exclusion of the tender. This is at odds with the appearance of 'correctability' created by Art 30 RFSDIT. This evidences the inadequacy of applying a merger or State aid control logic to the public procurement context. Third, the relative intensity of the foreign subsidy is much lower for procurement than for concentrations under the RFSDIT. Art 18(3) creates a safe harbour of up to 10% of the value of a concentration. Art 27(2) contains no parallel rule. Thus, Art 3(2) offers the only (soft) safe harbour for procurement, which means that subsidies of 2% or less of the tender value would be caught. The reason for this different treatment under RFSDIT opens it to challenge on proportionality grounds. Moreover, it is unclear how a 2% subsidy could create a situation comparable to that of an ALT, which further reinforces concerns of unequal treatment, as above.

GC case law round up: Three relatively recent public procurement judgments (T-700/14; T-74/15; T-441/15)

After some months of having them sitting on my desk, and now that teaching obligations at the University of Bristol Law School subside a bit, it is about time to comment on three relatively recent Judgments of the General Court (GC) of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the area of public procurement. Of the three cases, two concern abnormally low tenders and the other  a tricky point about the scope of the CJEU's jurisdiction in the context of framework agreements--which creates some fuzziness in the delineation of private/public law dimensions of public procurement by the EU Institutions. Anecdotally, two of the cases involve European Dynamics, and two of them are available in French but not in English.

Abnormally low tenders (I): Substantive Aspects

Judgment of 26 January 2017, TV1 v Commission, T-700/14, not published, EU:T:2017:35. This tender concerned the provision of integrated audiovisual production, dissemination and archiving services for the European Commission in the context of the Europe by Satellite programme and was, thus, regulated by the Financial Regulation (version of 2012).

The procedure for the award of the contract foresaw three technical quality criteria in addition to the price criterion. It established that only offers that achieved a minimum score of 60% under each technical quality criterion and an overall score of at least 70% on their overall technical quality would be considered for award. It also determined that the overall score of a given tender would be calculated as follows: the ratio between the lowest priced offer and the price of a given offer would be multiplied by 40, and this would be added to the total (technical) quality score (over 100) multiplied by 60 (para 4, own translation from French). In other words, the award criteria relied on 60% of the points given to an absolute evaluation of technical quality and 40% of the points given to a relative evaluation of the prices offered by different tenderers. Given the relative assessment of the price component, this type of evaluation method is prone to challenges based on the treatment of seemingly abnormally low tenders.

Indeed, amongst other legal grounds, the award of the contract was challenged on this basis; the incumbent provider and disappointed tenderer, TV1, argued that the Commission had infringed Art 110(2) Financial Regulation, in conjunction with Art 151 of its Implementing Regulation and the general duty of good administration by not proceeding to a detailed assessment (and rejection) of the seemingly abnormally low offer submitted by the successful tenderer. The GC will eventually reject the complaint in its entirety. In my opinion, some parts of the reasoning of the GC deserve closer attention.

After reproducing consolidated case law on the interpretation of these provisions and the circumstances under which a contracting authority may (or should) have doubts about the viability of a seemingly abnormal tender (paras 32-42), as well as on the broad discretion enjoyed by the contracting authority and the limited review in which the court should engage (para 44), the GC proceeds to analyse the different arguments raised by TV1 against the Commission's decision. In particular, it is interesting to note that the GC dismisses arguments put forward by TV1 concerning the duty the Commission should have had to identify the winning offer as seemingly abnormally low on the basis of the fact that (i) it was 40% lower than the maximum annual budget allowed by the Commission in the tender documents and (ii) it was 11% lower than TV1's offer.

(i) Interestingly, the reasoning of the GC concerning the irrelevance of the fact that the winning tender was 40% below the maximum budget set by the Commission (and that the challengers' offer was itself 32% below maximum budget) rests on the inaccuracy of the budget set by the Commission. Apparently, when setting the maximum budget, the Commission had failed to take into account sharp reductions in the cost of providing the services now (re)tendered (para 49). Thus, the GC was satisfied that the discrepancy between maximum budget and actual offers was a result of the Commission's inaccurate budgeting rather that of abnormal low prices included in the offers. Logically, this makes sense and it could have well been the case. It does, however, raise important concerns about the accuracy and usefulness of budgeting for public contracts under the Financial Regulations--but that is probably a discussion to be had some other time.

(ii) The reasoning of the GC concerning the 11% discrepancy between the lowest (winning) tender and the next (challenger) tender is also interesting. As a matter of general consideration, the GC stresses that "[a]n offer may be cheaper than another without being abnormally low" (para 58) and that "[t]his also applies to a situation in which the tender price of the successful tenderer is lower than that of the tender of the incumbent provider. Otherwise, the incumbent provider could systematically question the reliability of the cheaper offers of the other tenderers, even if they are not abnormally low, but only economically more advantageous" (para 59, own translation from French). In that connection, it is important to stress that the GC sets aside as insufficient reasons to trigger an in-depth assessment of the challenger's offer as apparently abnormally low, the claims brought forward by TV1 that it had to make significant investments when it was first awarded the contract now (re)tendered, and that an expert should be appointed to check that the winning tenderer "should have incurred expenses comparable to those which the [incumbent] had had to bear several years previously in order to be able to supply the services covered by the earlier contract" (para 67, own translation from French). This is interesting because it avoids an analysis of sunk costs that could, otherwise, advantage the incumbent [for related analysis, see A Sanchez-Graells, Public Procurement and the EU Competition Rules, 2nd edn (Oxford, Hart, 2015) 412 ff].

Overall, then, the GC's assessment of the reasons adduced by TV1 to justify the existence of an obligation on the part of the Commission to engage in an in-depth investigation of the winning tender as apparently abnormally low is sound and should be welcome.

Abnormally low tenders (II): Procedural Aspects

Judgment of 2 February 2017,  European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission, T-74/15, not published, EU:T:2017:55. In this case, the tendered contract concerned the provision of IT services relating to off-site information systems development, studies and support. The tender was for the conclusion of a framework agreement which would operate on the basis of mini-competitions.

The challenge brought by European Dynamics concerned the rejection of two specific requests for quotations as a result of two such mini-competitions. One of the challenges concerned an allegation that the chosen quotation was abnormally low, and the legal basis on which it is founded concerns a failure to provide reasons for a dismissal of the claim that the winning quotation was not abnormally low (ie a breach of Arts 113(2) of the Financial Regulation and Art 161(2) of its Implementing Regulation, as cited above). Thus, in this case, the challenge is not based primarily on the dismissal of reasons adduced to create or justify an appearance of abnormality in a tender, but rather on the absence of motivation for that result.

The GC thus takes a very different approach in this case and, rather than concentrating on the elements under which the discretion of the contracting authority is assessed in relation to its determination of whether a tender is seemingly abnormally low or not (as above), on this occasion the GC concentrates on the duty to give reasons as the main check and balance of such discretion, as well as a necessary procedural step in order to preserve the procedural rights of tenderers for public contracts (paras 35-41). From this perspective, the GC stresses that

In the present case, it is apparent ... that the applicants expressly requested clarification from the Commission in order to demonstrate that the price offered by the successful tenderer was not abnormally low ... the Commission confirmed that its [debriefing] letter ... contained its reply in that regard. So far as concerns the nature of the tender selected [in the specific mini-competition] it is apparent from the last page of that letter that the Commission merely stated, in a single sentence, that ‘“the winning offer” of the IPT tender did not fall under the case of “abnormally low” offers.’ (para 45, emphasis added).

The legal issue in front of the GC was, consequently, whether such brief dismissal of the allegation brought forward by European Dynamics sufficed to meet the relevant threshold for the purposes of the duty to provide reasons. As could be expected, the GC does not offer a positive answer. It stresses that

... the single sentence in the letter ... stating that the tender was not abnormally low does not fulfil the duties assigned to the obligation to state reasons, that is, the reasons must be disclosed clearly and unequivocally so as, on the one hand, to make the persons concerned aware of the reasons for the measure and thereby enable them to defend their rights and, on the other, to enable the Court to exercise its power of review. It cannot be accepted that a contracting authority should explain the not abnormally low nature of a tender merely by stating that such was considered not to be the case (para 47, emphasis added).

The GC does not stop there and goes to the extra length of consolidating the substantive standard applicable to the reasons that should be given in order to discharge this duty vis-a-vis a claim concerning the abnormally low nature of a tender. The consolidation of the standard is rather formulaic and may be seen to follow too closely the specific aspects which the Financial Regulation sets out to be possible cause for the abnormality of low values in a tender (eg non-compliance with employment and social law), but it can be a generally useful benchmark in that it clarifies that

... requiring the contracting authority to present the grounds on the basis of which an offer was not considered to be abnormally low does not require it to disclose precise information on the technical and financial aspects of that tender, such as the prices offered or the resources that the successful bidder proposes to use in order to provide the services that it offers. In order to provide a sufficient statement of reasons for that aspect of the selected tender, the contracting authority must set out the reasoning on the basis of which, on the one hand, it concluded that, because of its principally financial characteristics, such an offer complied with the national legislation of the country in which the services were to be carried out in respect of the remuneration of staff, contribution to the social security scheme and compliance with occupational safety and health standards and, on the other, it determined that the proposed price included all the costs arising from the technical aspects of the selected tender ... Accordingly, the Commission’s argument that the tenders in the present case had not raised any doubts that they were not abnormally low and that there was therefore no other information which it could have provided to the applicants must be rejected. (para 49, references omitted and emphasis added).

This comes to clarify that, even if the contracting authority does not think that there is a need to engage in an in-depth assessment of the (winning) tender to determine if it is abnormally low, it must at all times be in a position to provide the reasons why it did not think that was the case. Overall, this seems adequate, although it continues a line of case law that tends to create a significant burden at debriefing stage and that can trigger significant concerns of excessive transparency of commercially-sensitive information between competitors, as the GC's relatively open-ended requirement in para 49 of the Judgment may be difficult to square with the contracting authority's obligation not to disclose information in a way that could alter competition [on that, generally, see A Sanchez-Graells, "The Difficult Balance between Transparency and Competition in Public Procurement: Some Recent Trends in the Case Law of the European Courts and a Look at the New Directives" (2013). University of Leicester School of Law Research Paper No. 13-11]. 

A Tricky Jurisdictional Point

Judgment of 17 February 2017, European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v EMA, T-441/15, not published, EU:T:2017:104. The tender in this case concerned the provision of IT services through a framework agreement that included a cascade mechanism for the allocation of call-off contracts within the framework (for a reference to previous litigation concerning this type of mechanism, see here). European Dynamics was awarded the second-tier framework agreement. At the relevant time, EMA asked European Dynamics for CVs of its candidates for the position of project manager for a given contract. EMA rejected all 5 candidates presented by European Dynamics, and this triggered the challenge.

From a jurisdictional perspective, the difficulty in this case was to determine whether EMA's rejection of the candidates put forward by European Dynamics was a decision of an EU Institution challengeable before the CJEU (GC) under its competence as per Art 263 TFEU. In that regard, the GC stressed that "[i]t must be borne in mind that, under Article 263 TFEU, the [Court] only reviews the legality of acts adopted by the institutions intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties, significantly by altering their legal position" (para 18, own translation from French). The key question was thus whether EMA's rejection of European Dynamic candidates fell within this jurisdictional framework. 

The GC distinguished this case from the previous analysis in Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (OLAF), T-498/11, EU:T:2014:831 (for discussion see here) on the basis that, "[t]he present case differs from [case T-498/11] in that [in the previous instance,] the specific contracts had not yet been awarded but had to be awarded on the basis of 'mini-competitions' between the selected 'framework contractors' ... [whereas] in the present case, as regards the implementation of a multiple framework contract with cascade allocation, the specific contract has already been allocated according to the position of the economic operators in the cascade, without the need for any further competition between those [economic operators]. Therefore, if the first economic operator is unable to provide the required service or not interested in doing so, the second best operator will be contacted. If the latter is unable to provide the required service or is not interested, then the third best operator will be contacted" (para 24, own translation from French).

Without any additional reasoning, the GC concludes that "the claim for annulment must be declared inadmissible in so far as it is based on Article 263 TFEU" (para 27), on the (implicit) basis that EMA's decision to reject European Dynamic's candidates falls strictly within a pre-established contractual relationship. In the specific case, the CJEU's jurisdiction is saved by the existence of a compromissory clause compatible with Art 272 TFEU in the framework agreement signed between EMA and European Dynamics (para 20), as well as due to the fact that EMA did not challenge the reclassification of the claim for annulment as a contractual claim (para 16). However, it is easy to see how the approach adopted by the GC could have left the claim in limbo -- and possibly time-barred ... -- had it not been by EMA's willingness to deal with the claim in a principled and open manner. Moreover, even if the GC's strictly literal interpretation was right (of which I am not convinced), there would be normative issues concerning the different treatment of functionally identical decisions depending on the type of framework agreement that European Institutions chose to conclude.

Overall, I would suggest that this case should work as a cautionary tale and that the scope of the jurisdiction of the CJEU (GC) to review acts of the European Institutions that, despite taking part within a contractual setting still carry (sufficient) connotations of the exercise of a public power (something the GC only lightly touched upon in this Judgment, at para [22]), requires some rethinking.

Justifications for apparently abnormally low tenders need to be in sync with original tender (T-422/11)

In its Judgment in Computer Resources International (Luxembourg) v Commission, T-422/11, EU:T:2014:927, the General Court (GC) has clarified (although limited if any doubt could be bharboured) that the reasons provided by tenderers to justify the viability of their apparently abnormally low tenders need to be compatible with the terms of their initial tender.

 

In the case at hand, the apparent abnormality of the offer derived from the low manpower costs offered in relation to the provision of IT services in Luxembourg. Upon request of the contracting authority, the participating consortium tried to justify the low cost included in the tender on the basis that the services would (actually) be provided as a mix of presential support in Luxembourg and remote support from Romania. The contracting authority rejected this explanation as inadmissible and rejected the offer for being abnormally low. The GC has confirmed this decision (paras 53-55 and 82 and ff).

 

Maybe more interestingly, the GC also rejected an argument based on a sort of estoppel, whereby the participating consortium challenged the abnormally low consideration of costs that had, however, been accepted by the same contracting authority in a different procurement exercise. As a general point, the GC determined that the contracting authority

correctly took the view that a comparison of the prices proposed in the applicant’s tenders with the prices proposed within the context of other tendering procedures was irrelevant. Contrary to the applicant’s claim that no precedent is irrelevant when it is in the ‘same market’, the content of a tender must be examined in the light of the call for tenders to which it responds (T-422/11, para 69, emphasis added).

In my view, this is the only criticisable point in the Judgment (and an unnecessary one, given the lack of support for the applicant's arguments) and should be limited to the obiter dictum character it has in the specific circumstances of the case. Indeed, looking at the prices the contracting authority has accepted in contemporaneous and comparable procurement exercises would be relevant to the assessment of abnormality--not so much in order to create a (constructive) estoppel, but as an economic benchmark.

Other than that, the Judgment of the GC in Computer Resources International is an interesting summary and case study of the specific obligations imposed on contracting authorities that suspect that an offer (or some of its components) is abnormally low. This should serve as guidance in the interpretation and enforcement of article 69 of Directive 2014/24.

3 more instalments in the Evropaïki Dynamiki saga: one successful appeal (T-638/11)

Today, the General Court has issued three Judgments that add to the 'Evropaïki Dynamiki saga'. In two of them (T-474/10 and T-457/10), the famous challenger of EU Institutions' procurement decisions has lost the appeals and been condemned to bear the costs. Generally, none of this two cases raises signifcantly new issues (although one touches upon a complicated aspect of the prevention of fraud and corruption where a holding company of one of the members of the consortium was involved) and the GC is concerned once (actually, twice) more with the duties to state reasons and the contours of the manifest error of assessment of contracting authorities when they assess tenders and award contracts. However, in a third case (T-638/11 European Dynamics Belgium and Others v EMA), the appellant has been successful.

 

In the 'successful' case, the GC quashes EMA's decision on the basis of the poor explanations provided in the debriefing following the assessment of the tenders from a technical perspective. The GC finds that the reasons provided do not allow participating tenderers to understand the marks obtained for their technical proposals and make them unable to compare their assessment against that of the awardee (since the feedback received was vague and of a general nature).

 

Moreover, and maybe more interestingly, the GC engages in an analysis of the degree of disclosure that contracting authorities must ensure where there have been doubts as to the existence of an abnormally low tender. In the case at hand, the winning consortium had been requested to provide additional explanations and to justify that its tender was not abnormally low. The contracting authority was satisfied with those clarifications and proceeded to award the contract in those (not abnormally low) terms. The appellant sought to have access to those explanations and justifications in order to challenge the decision to finally award the contract to that particular consortium. However, the contracting authority had declined to disclose that information on the basis that it constituted a business secret of the winning tenderer.

The GC threads quite lightly and tries to establish an intermediate solution by stressing that:

In addition, EMA argues that by providing detailed information on compliance with the regulations for the protection of workers and working conditions or about the particular economy of the services offered by the consortium S., it would damage the legitimate commercial interests of the latter. However, to require the contracting authority to disclose the grounds upon which it has decided that an offer should not be considered abnormally low does not require it to disclose detailed information on the technical and financial aspects of the offer, such as the prices offered, the resources available to the contractor or the ways in which the successful bidder proposes to provide the services it offers. In order to provide sufficient motivation for this aspect of the tender, the contracting authority shall state the reasoning which led it to conclude that, on the one hand , given its main financial characteristics, such offer is in compliance with the laws of the country in which the services should be performed for staff salaries, contribution to social security and standards of safety and health at work; and, secondly, that it was verified that the proposed prices integrated all the costs generated by the technical aspects of the successful tender (T-638/11 at para 68, own translation from French).

Therefore, the GC does require some kind of 'high level' explanation as to why the contracting authority has been finally satisfied that the offer retained is not abnormally low, but always provided that it protects the confidentiality of the specific details that should remain under business secrecy. Surely, the test envisaged by the GC is not very clearly delineated and requires some further precision, but it is yet another push for the disclosure of information that may make tenderers reluctant to provide very specific information when they are being investigated for having submitted an apparently abnormally low offer (given that, even at some high level, certain information may still be commercial sensitive). I hope that future case law will offer more specific guidance as to how to strike this difficult balance.

Rejection of Abnormally Low and Non-Compliant Tenders in EU Public Procurement: A Comparative View on Selected Jurisdictions

In this new paper, I attempt a concise comparison of the rules applicable to the rejection of abnormally low and non-compliant tenders in a number of EU jurisdictions (namely, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Romania, Spain and the United Kingdom). 

In order to set the common ground for the analysis of such domestic rules, which are solely applicable to non-negotiated procedures, the paper first offers a description of the rules in the EU public procurement Directives and the case law of the European Courts (ie GC and CJEU), and then proceeds to compare them against this benchmark and amongst themselves. Where possible, the paper highlights innovative or different solutions, as well as potential deviations from EU law.

• Sánchez Graells, Albert, Rejection of Abnormally Low and Non-Compliant Tenders in EU Public Procurement: A Comparative View on Selected Jurisdictions (April 11, 2013). European Procurement Law Series, Vol 6 (forth). http://ssrn.com/abstract=224859