The false promise of e-procurement portals? A comment on Yukins & Ramish (2018) from a European perspective

©nist6dh

In a very thought-provoking recent paper*, Chris Yukins and Dan Ramish discuss two proposed reforms of US defence procurement law that would reduce access to bid protest mechanisms as an (unintended) consequence of efforts to streamline procurement on the basis of new (?) technologies. They concentrate, in particular, on the proposal to 'launch a pilot program to allow federal officials to buy directly from electronic portals [which] could—depending on its implementation—allow procurements to bypass the normal public solicitation process, and foreclose pre-award protests [the 'section 846 proposal']. The second set of proposals [... the 'section 809 proposal' ...] might radically streamline off-the-shelf purchasing, which again could make pre-award protests practically impossible' (p 4).

In simple terms, Yukins and Ramish analyse the impact that direct access to e-procurement portals could have for the system of checks and balances resulting from bid protest possibilities. As they put it, '[a]s a practical matter, if either initiative ... ultimately means that federal officials will be allowed to purchase commercially available goods and services directly from commercial electronic marketplaces without the prior publication normally required ..., that streamlined procedure could exempt billions of procurement dollars from accountability in the bid protest process. That, in turn, could have serious consequences, only some of which are fully foreseeable' (p 5).

Their paper provides an excellent overview of the relevance of bid protest (or procurement challenge) mechanisms for the proper functioning of the procurement function. It also stresses the relevance that review procedures have in international law--and in particular for the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, and the World Trade Organisation Government Procurement Agreement (WTO GPA)--which is particularly relevant in the context of the on-going Brexit process (for discussion, see P Telles & A Sanchez-Graells, 'Examining Brexit Through the GPA's Lens: What Next for UK Public Procurement Reform?' (2017) 47(1) PCLJ 1-33).

Maybe of even more interest, Yukins and Ramish raise very important points about the potential unintended consequences of the implementation of a policy that relied on e-procurement portals or an e-marketplace for the public sector in terms of the incentives for the exercise of administrative discretion. In their view

Because of the important protections they provide against error and corruption, bid protests have been adopted across the U.S., and indeed around the world (p 1, emphasis added).

... bid protests ... give vendors competing in international procurement markets a means of challenging unfair barriers to competition (p 2, emphasis added).

If the [section 846 proposal] results in direct purchases from electronic portals (thus in practice exempting an entire phase of procurement from protest), these changes would make it easier for officials to indulge in pre-award discrimination and could pose serious questions ... (p 4, emphasis added).

These considerations are best understood under the framework of Yukins' previous work on agency theory and procurement [see 'A Versatile Prism: Assessing Procurement Law Through the Principal-Agent Model' (2010) 40 PCLJ 63-86]. From that perspective, it is clear that pre-award bid protests serve as both a mechanism to incentivise and to discipline the public buyer as an agent. It creates incentives to design the procurement properly and in a pro-competitive manner to avoid the delays implicit in bid protests, as well as to achieve best value for money (which is the prime concern the procuring agent should have, and which an adequate system of rewards and performance evaluation should support). It also deters improper conduct through the threat of litigation (and, potentially, personal liability, depending on the specific features of the bid protest system, and the criminalisation of corrupt practices).

In short, bid protest mechanisms serve to improve the quality of procurement--in particular, through incentives to carry out market research prior to the launch of a procurement procedure--and its probity and integrity--through mechanisms to challenge discrimination and corrupt practices. Ultimately, then, the existence of bid protest mechanisms is in the public interest--even if they are engaged by private actors (disappointed bidders), acting as private attorney general. This does not detract from the need to design the bid protest mechanism in a way that weeds out spurious litigation. However, as a matter of principle, agency theory supports that having a bid protest mechanism is better than not having it.

Against this backdrop, it seems obvious that a suppression of the possibility of pre-award bid protest will erode public interest by creating a risk of both lower quality procurement design and diminished procurement probity. Whether these increased risks are countered by the practical advantages derived from streamlined e-procurement practices may be controversial. However, in the absence of evidence about the redundancy of bid protest mechanisms, and in view of the functional role they serve, I happily sit with Yukins' and Ramish's call not to suppress them in the name of (theoretical) procedural expeditiousness.

The risk of allowing contracting authorities to simply go to the (e)market is that it (re)creates the same problems of misuse of public funds that procurement rules are there to minimise. In every conversation about public procurement, the question arises what are these rules for, and the answer ends up converging towards: 'competition, transparency, and integrity', as proxies to promote value for money and probity [see S Schooner 'Desiderata: Objectives for a System of Government Contract Law' (2002) 11 PPLR 103]. The difficulty with the use of an e-marketplace for public buyers is that, either it is created within the same system of checks and balances of the procurement rules, or the procurement function will be exposed to the shortcomings of inadequate or limited competition (in particular if the gatekeeper of the e-market has a way of extracting rents from willing suppliers) and discrimination or corruption (if there is the possibility for either the gatekeeper or the agent, ie the public buyer, to appropriate rents). More importantly, the monitoring of the 'quality of the marketplace' and its integrity will be eroded by the suppression of the specific mechanisms included in procurement regulation--possibly leaving it all to antitrust/competition law, with its notorious shortcomings in addressing similar issues in platform markets with strong potential for innovation. On the whole, then, the risks created by unbridled access to e-markets are not different from the risks of uncontrolled access to standard markets that justified the emergence of procurement law centuries ago.

In the context of European procurement law, I think that this is an important reflection to engage with. A move towards e-procurement portals and off-the-shelf purchasing would, as things stand and in principle, require the existence of procurement challenge mechanisms at the point of setting up those mechanisms--either as framework agreements or dynamic purchasing systems, or as a result of the intervention of a centralised purchasing body tasked with the creation (and operation) of the e-marketplace. However, there have been recent developments that jeopardise this position, such as the contraction of the concept of procurement in Falk Pharma and Tirkkonen, or the underlying problem that led to the regulation of the activities of 'separate operational units' within a contracting authority for the purposes of value aggregation. These issues raise important questions as to whether the evolution of EU procurement (case) law is also creating an (inadvertent) threat of erosion of the quality and probity of the system whereby public funds are channelled towards the meeting of needs in the public interest.

* C R Yukins & D Ramish, 'Section 809 and "E-Portal" Proposals, by Cutting Bid Protests in Federal Procurement, Could Breach International Agreements and Raise New Risks of Corruption' (2018) 60 GOV’T CONTRACTOR ¶ 138. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3176223.

ECJ extends justiciability of procurement infringements: No need to review the Remedies Directive? (C-391/15)

In its Judgment of 5 April 2017 in Marina del Mediterráneo and Others, C-391/15, EU:C:2017:268, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued another preliminary ruling on the scope of the Remedies Directive. The case required clarification on the concrete type of decisions that interested tenderers can challenge under the Remedies Directive.

In particular, the case sought clarification on whether the review procedures mandated by Art 2(1), and applicable to "decisions taken by the contracting authorities" (as per Art 1(1) Remedies Directive), had to allow a tenderer to challenge a decision by which the contracting authority allowed another economic operator to submit a tender in a public procurement procedure. That is, whether the Remedies Directive created standing to challenge exclusion and selection decisions that concerned other tenderers.

This issue can be seen as controversial because there are two ways in which the analysis can be framed. Firstly, it can be considered that a decision not to exclude (or to select) a competing tenderer does not necessarily produce adverse legal effects for other tenderers--and, consequently, there are no subjective rights to be protected at this stage. Secondly, and to the contrary, it can be considered that a decision that determines the number of competing tenderers among which the contracting authority needs to choose the awardee of the contract produces legal effects on all tenderers involved--and, consequently, there can be (soft?) subjective rights meriting protection both in decisions to exclude (vis-a-vis the excluded tenderer) and not to exclude (vis-a-vis all other tenderers).

The first approach to this issue would be closer to a strict interpretation of the procedural rights implicit in the participation in a procurement process--ie that unless a decision makes it impossible for a tenderer to continue its participation in the tender, there is no decision for which revision it has a legitimate interest / legal standing. The second approach is probably closer to a substantive interpretation of those same procedural rights, as well as supportive of a system of private oversight of compliance with (EU) public procurement law through private actions, where challenges on the basis of the illegality of exclusion and selection decisions are easier to accommodate.

In Marina del Mediterráneo, the relevant Spanish rules followed the first approach, and determined that: "the following acts may be the subject of the application [for judicial review]: (a) Contract notices, specifications and contractual documents laying down the conditions which will govern the procurement procedure; (b) Preparatory acts adopted in the tendering procedure, provided that they decide, directly or indirectly, the award of the contract, make it impossible to continue the procedure or to put up a defence, or cause irreparable harm to legitimate rights or interests. Acts of the procurement board which decide to exclude tenderers will be considered preparatory acts which make it impossible to continue the procedure; (c) Award decisions adopted by the contracting authorities" (C-391/15, para 11, emphasis added).

Thus, under Spanish law, a decision to exclude a tenderer can be challenged 'there and then' by the excluded tenderer, but a decision not to exclude (or to select) that tenderer can only be challenged by other tenderers at the end of the procedure (ie during standstill) and only on the basis of the illegality of the decision to award the contract to that particular tenderer and/or any of the preparatory acts for that decision. 

Therefore, by challenging the Spanish rule, the preliminary reference fundamentally--but rather implicitly--concerned the extent to which Arts 1(1) and 2(1) of the Remedies Directive can be transposed/interpreted in a way that limits the procurement decisions open to (separate, immediate) review to those that negatively affect the subjective rights of a tenderer (in a narrow construction), or whether those provisions create a catch-all category that makes (virtually) all decisions taken by the contracting authority along the procurement processes susceptible of (separate and particularised) review.

That not absolutely all decisions need to be subjected to the review procedures of the Remedies Directive was suggested on the basis of Commission v Spain (C‑214/00, EU:C:2003:276, para 80), where the Commission challenged the same Spanish rule for failing to ‘allow review to be sought of all decisions adopted by the contracting authorities, including all procedural measures, during the procedure for the award of public contracts’, and the ECJ rejected that maximalist approach on the basis that ‘the Commission has not established that that legislation does not provide adequate judicial protection for individuals harmed by infringements of the relevant rules of [Union] law or of the national rules transposing that law’. This could be seen as a decision purely on the (lack of) evidence adduced by the Commission. However, even if a wider reading of the ECJ decision is adopted to the effect that there may be procurement decisions that do not harm individual rights in a manner that merits (separate, immediate) review, the boundaries of the categories of decisions covered by the Remedies Directive remained all but fuzzy, and the extent to which Arts 1(1) and 2(1) of the Remedies Directive had to be interpreted in a restrictive or an expansive way required clarification.

It is worth stressing that AG Bobek (Opinion of 8 September 2016, C-391/15, EU:C:2016:651) was convinced by the first approach outlined above (ie a restrictive interpretation of the Remedies Directive) because constructing the remedies system "in such a broad and rather limitless way would mean that every single decision, however marginal and ancillary, could be immediately attacked, and the award procedure effectively halted. Yet, ... a reasonable balance must be struck between the different interests at stake in public procurement procedures, namely, the right of access to court and judicial review to challenge aspects of the procedure, on the one hand, and effectiveness of the overall procedure and judicial expediency, on the other" (para 34, footnote ommitted). 

Therefore, in an Opinion that seemingly tried to avoid declaring the necessary justiciability of (every) exclusion and selection decision, invited the ECJ to declare that national procedural rules could avoid subjecting those decision to direct (and specific) review provided that: "(a) the national legislation does not hinder immediate review of preparatory acts that produce adverse legal effects on undertakings; and (b) a plea of illegality of preparatory acts that do not produce adverse legal effects on undertakings, such as a decision to admit a candidate to a tendering procedure, can be made in support of an action against the final decision awarding the contract taken on the basis of those preparatory acts" (para 67) . 

In short, the ECJ disagreed with AG Bobek and found that, where there are allegations that a decision allowing a tenderer to participate in a procurement procedure was adopted in breach of EU public procurement law or the national legislation transposing it, national rules must class such decision among the preparatory acts of a contracting authority which may be subject to an independent judicial review--or, in simpler terms, that exclusion and selection decisions concerning other tenderers are open to the review procedures of the Remedies Directive. the reasons given by the ECJ are primarily that:

[the] broad construction of the concept of a ‘decision’ taken by a contracting authority is confirmed by the fact that Article 1(1) of [the Remedies Directive] does not lay down any restriction with regard to the nature or content of the decisions it refers to. Moreover, a restrictive interpretation of that concept would be incompatible with the terms of Article 2(1)(a) of that directive which requires Member States to make provision for interim relief procedures in relation to any decision taken by the contracting authorities (para 27).

And that:

... although [the Remedies Directive] has not formally laid down the time from which the possibility of review, as provided for in Article 1(1), must be open, the objective of that directive, as referred to in the preceding paragraph, does not authorise Member States to make the exercise of the right to apply for review conditional on the fact that the public procurement procedure in question has formally reached a particular stage ...  the fact that the national legislation at issue ... requires, in all cases, a tenderer to wait for a decision awarding the contract in question before it may apply for a review of a decision allowing another tenderer to participate in that procurement procedure infringes the provisions of [the Remedies Directive] (paras 31 and 34).

In my view, even if there are issues of consistency with previous case law that may require some additional fine tuning, there is no question that the ECJ has taken a very expansive approach to the interpretation of the Remedies Directive on this occasion, and that the thrust of the Marina del Mediterráneo Judgment reflects a wide approach to the provision of procurement remedies.

This puts significant pressure on domestic review procedures to ensure that virtually all decisions taken by a contracting authority can be challenged, and that the challenge is available as soon as possible -- and definitely before the award of the contract because as expressed in the "first and second recitals, [the Remedies Directive] is intended to strengthen the existing mechanisms, both at national and EU levels, to ensure the effective application of the directives relating to public procurement, in particular at a stage when infringements can still be corrected" (para 30). This is particularly relevant in view of the (unnecessary) declaration by the ECJ that "Articles 1(1) and 2(1)(a) and (b) of [the Remedies Directive have direct effect" (para 41), which will provide robust legal foundation to challenges against existing domestic rules on access to review procedures.

This approach is bound to further judicialise public procurement oversight through expanded justiciability of (exclusion, but not only) decisions, and puts renewed pressure on the development of more robust procurement review procedures by the Member States--possibly requiring a reform of the Remedies Directives themselves, as I discuss at length in "'If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It'? EU Requirements of Administrative Oversight and Judicial Protection for Public Contracts",  in S Torricelli & F Folliot Lalliot (eds), Administrative oversight and judicial protection for public contracts (forthcoming). In my view, this is not necessarily a blueprint for desirable regulatory reform and more thought needs to go into the balance between public compliance oversight and private enforcement of the EU public procurement rules. However, it seems out of the question that legal reform will be necessary (in Spain and elsewhere) and, in my view, that the European Commission abandoned the revision of the Remedies Directives too quickly.

AG Sharpston rightly opposes use of financial guarantees as pre-requisite for procurement challenges (C-439/14 and C-488/14)

In Opinion of 28 April 2016 in joined cases Star Storage and Max Boegl România and Construcții Napoca, C-439/14 and C-488/14, EU:C:2016:307, AG Sharpston considered 'whether EU law precludes a Member State from requiring an applicant to lodge a ‘good conduct guarantee’ in order to access review procedures for public procurement decisions by contracting authorities' or,  'how far can the Member States set up financial requirements for challenging contracting authorities’ decisions in order to reduce the risk of frivolous challenges, that is to say, challenges that are inherently likely to be unsuccessful and whose purpose is merely to impede the public contract award procedure?'.

The case comes on the back of a challenge against Romanian procedural rules whereby undertakings seeking the review of procurement decisions need to lodge such a 'good conduct guarantee' of 1% of the estimated value of the contract (with progressive caps at €10k, €25k and €100k), and contracting authorities retain the good conduct guarantee where the body competent to review their decisions rejects the challenge or where the applicant abandons it. For the sake of completes, the Opinion also assesses whether a guarantee that was returned to the applicant regardless of the outcome of the case would be compatible with EU law.

AG Sharpston's Opinion is interesting because it covers arguments linked both to the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal recognised by Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (which is clearly of prominence in this area; see Fastweb, C-19/13, EU:C:2014:2194), and to the more precise rights to access to rapid and effective review procedures and remedies in the field of public procurement under the Remedies Directive (and the identical provisions of the Utilities Remedies Directive).

After a very detailed assessment (see below), AG Sharpston unsurprisingly concludes that the Remedies Directive and the Utilities Remedies Directive, 'read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, preclude national legislation ... which requires an applicant to lodge a ‘good conduct guarantee’ in order to obtain access to review of a contracting authority’s decisions relating to public procurement and under which the contracting authority must retain that guarantee if the challenge is rejected or withdrawn, regardless of whether or not the challenge is frivolous'. Equally, that 'the same provisions of EU law also preclude national legislation which requires an applicant to lodge a ‘good conduct guarantee’ in order to obtain access to review of a contracting authority’s decisions and under which that applicant automatically gets back the guarantee at the end of the challenge, whatever its outcome'.

These issues generally concern the delineation of the locus standi to challenge procurement decisions, which I have submitted needs to be interpreted in broad terms because 'the adoption of open or broad rules on active standing is a crucial element—particularly because, in this area, one of the major problems is the reluctance of public contractors and offerors to initiate litigation' [see A Sanchez-Graells, Public procurement and the EU competition rules, 2nd edn (Oxford, Hart, 2015) 439-441]. AG Sharpston's Opinion is clearly in line with such general expansive interpretation of rules recognising active standing in procurement review procedures. Therefore, her Opinion must be welcome and it is submitted that the Court of Justice should follow it. However, I also submit that she could have been bolder in assessing these issues in the broader context of the use of financial guarantees in public procurement. From this perspective, I think that some of the specific elements of Sharpston's analysis are interesting in their detail.

AG Sharpston's analysis on the basis of art 47 charter

When setting the legal background to the dispute, AG Sharpston emphases that the right under Art 47 of the Charter is not absolute, but that it can only be limited subject to the principle of proportionality and only if the limitation is necessary and genuinely meets objectives of general interest recognised by the EU, or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others [as per Art 52(1) Charter]. She also stresses that under Art 1(1) of the Remedies Directive, Member States must 'ensure that ... decisions taken by the contracting authorities may be reviewed effectively and, in particular, as rapidly as possible ... on the grounds that such decisions have infringed [EU] law in the field of public procurement or national rules transposing that law', and that under Art 1(3) of the Remedies Directive, 'the review procedures [shall be] available, under detailed rules which the Member States may establish, at least to any person having or having had an interest in obtaining a particular contract and who has been or risks being harmed by an alleged infringement'.

AG Sharpston also clearly stresses that the Remedies Directive only sets 'minimum conditions which the review procedures under domestic law must satisfy in order to comply with EU public procurement law [so that if] no specific provision governs the matter, it is for each Member State to lay down the detailed rules of administrative and judicial procedures governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from EU public procurement law' (para 30, references omitted). Thus, given that the Remedies Directive 'contains [no] rules on financial requirements which economic operators may have to fulfil in order to obtain access to review procedures against decisions of contracting authorities. National provisions ... fall within the procedural autonomy of the Member States, subject to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness' (para 31).

However, AG Sharpston raises two relevant issues: 'First, can [the principle of effectiveness] be limited to verifying that a national procedural requirement ... renders practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of the right to review procedures set out in [the Remedies Directive]? Or is it broader in that it requires any national rule which undermines those provisions to be set aside?' (para 33, emphasis in the original). To which she answers that 'what matters ultimately is to ensure that the rights which EU law confers on individuals receive more, rather than less, protection. [The Remedies Directive gives] specific expression to the right to an effective remedy. It is therefore not possible to limit the analysis of the principle of effectiveness to whether a procedural requirement such as that in issue in the main proceedings is liable to render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of that right. Rather, in that specific context, the effectiveness test must surely involve examining whether such a requirement is liable to undermine the right to effective review procedures which those provisions guarantee' (para 35, emphasis in the original).

'Second, what impact does the fundamental right to an effective remedy under Article 47 of the Charter have on the principle of effectiveness as a limit to the procedural autonomy of the Member States?' (para 36). And, in that regard, she clearly explains that 'Article 47 of the Charter applies in the main proceedings. Providing the good conduct guarantee is a pre-condition for getting any challenge examined. That requirement therefore constitutes a limitation on the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal within the meaning of Article 47. Such a limitation can therefore be justified only if it is provided for by law, if it respects the essence of that right and, subject to the principle of proportionality, if it is necessary and genuinely meets objectives of general interest recognised by the EU or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others. That test is similar to the test that the Strasbourg Court applies when it examines whether financial restrictions on access to courts are compatible with Article 6(1) of the ECHR' (para 37, references omitted).

This is an interesting analytical approach, which leads to the further consideration that the rules are underpinned by a legitimate purpose. In Sharpston's words, 'the national provisions establishing the good conduct guarantee are intended in essence to protect ... from frivolous challenges which economic operators (including those who are not tenderers) might initiate for purposes other than those for which the review procedures were established. Such an objective is undeniably legitimate. In particular, discouraging frivolous challenges enables the bodies in charge of reviewing decisions of contracting authorities to concentrate on ‘genuine’ challenges. That is likely to contribute to satisfying the requirement that Member States must ensure that decisions of contracting authorities may be reviewed effectively and, in particular, as rapidly as possible where it is claimed that such decisions infringe EU public procurement law or national rules transposing that law' (para 44, references omitted).

AG Sharpston also considers that the possibility of loosing significant amounts (up to €25k or €100k depending on the type of contract) meets the requirement that the rules are capable of achieving that objective because 'costs of that magnitude are such as to deter the lodging of frivolous challenges because the latter are, by their very nature, likely to be rejected and, therefore, to result automatically in loss of the entire good conduct guarantee and the associated costs' (para 47).

However, she submits that the rules on 'good conduct guarantees' do not meet the requirements of the principle of proportionality as derived from Art 52(1) of the Charter because there is no indication that they do no go further than is necessary to attain their objective. She assesses the situation in two scenarios. First, where the guarantee is automatically forfeited in case the challenge is rejected or withdrawn. In this case, there is no question that the rule is not proportionate because '[w]here a challenge was rejected or withdrawn, the ... competent court might for example have been given latitude to ascertain whether that challenge was frivolous or not, taking into account all relevant circumstances, and to decide in consequence whether retaining (all or part of) the good conduct guarantee was justified' (para 50, references omitted). Second, where the the applicant gets back the good conduct guarantee irrespective of the challenge’s outcome (which was a transitional regime proposed by Romania), AG Sharpston considers 'that such a procedural requirement does not protect contracting authorities adequately from frivolous challenges. Under the transitional regime, the contracting authority has to return the good conduct guarantee to the applicant within five days following the date on which the decision ... or the judgment has become final, even where the applicant manifestly abused his right to access review procedures. The costs which the transitional regime involves may therefore not be such as to discourage an economic operator from lodging a challenge that pursues an objective other than those for which the review procedures are established — for example, harming a competitor. They may nevertheless prove an obstacle to an economic operator with an arguable claim but limited means' (para 56). Therefore, she also considers it contrary to EU law.

scope for a bolder approach?

In my view, AG Sharpston is right on all issues she discusses, particularly given the framework of analysis she creates. However, the Opinion leaves space for Member States to still develop mechanisms whereby they require the submission of 'bid protest guarantees' that will only be forfeited in case of spurious litigation and on a case by case assessment. Broadly, this is not in line with the normative position that the use of financial guarantees in public procurement (primarily, at bidding stage, but also at review stage) needs to be minimised and only used where there is an actual risk against which the contracting authority cannot (self)protect by other means--which will very rarely be the case [see my Public procurement and the EU competition rules (2015) 326-327 & 425-426]. In my view, the risks derived from litigation are a given for the public sector and, consequently, unless there is a special circumstance that raises the possibility of damage to the public sector above abnormal levels, the need for the financial guarantee can be doubted.

A less restrictive alternative would be to devise a system of penalties which public procurement review bodies and courts could apply in case of spurious litigation. That would avoid front-loading the financial burden and would dissipate negative effects on access to review procedures. Conversely, it would leave the public sector exposed to bankruptcy risk in case the frivolous challengers did not have the ability to pay the fine. But this is not different from the general risk the public sector (and society at large) faces in terms of the effects of bankruptcy on the effectiveness of administrative sanctions. Thus, once more, the risk does not seem to be specific enough as to justify the requirement of specific 'bid protest guarantees' and, from that perspective, I submit that AG Sharpston could have been bolder in her Opinion in Star Storage and Max Boegl România and Construcții Napoca. However, on balance, her Opinion is certainly a positive step.