Home / Comments and Opinions / The Public Procurement Act is Changing: More Control, but Also New Problems

The Public Procurement Act is Changing: More Control, but Also New Problems

After seven years of discussions on whether and how much the Public Procurement Act needs to be changed, the second Draft Proposal for amendments to the Public Procurement Act has seen the light of day on e-Consultations, or the first serious one if we exclude the cosmetic changes from 2022. The professional public has praised some provisions, but part of them has faced sharp criticism. Whether these changes will increase the efficiency of procedures will be shown by practice, but some institutes will certainly open new avenues for complications.

I remember when the new Public Procurement Act was adopted in 2016, which came into force on January 1, 2017. It marked a radical change in the existing legal framework, bringing a series of novelties and uncertainties, questions, and procedural ambiguities.

It took several years for certain institutes to settle, and public procurement procedures financed from EU funds were a particular challenge. At that time, we were already conducting procurement for construction works on the Pelješac Bridge (which had started under the provisions of the old law) and many other financially burdensome procurements where there was a risk of irregularities and consequently financial corrections. For information, corrections in such cases would be measured in hundreds of millions of then kuna.

New Legal Uncertainties

Over the years, stakeholders have practiced certain phases of procedures, identified problematic areas, and discussed what and how to change. Practice has grown, decisions from the State Commission for Control of Public Procurement Procedures have somewhat shaped it, and the High Administrative Court has also been involved. There were disagreements, opposing opinions, and misunderstandings, but also smart proposals.

Now, the proposal has come to the fore, which, viewed positively, has clarified and sharpened certain institutes, but has also opened some new questions. The good news is that the thresholds for simple procurement have been raised, but at the same time, a provision has arrived stating that all procedures with an estimated value of 15,000 euros or more must be conducted within the Electronic Public Procurement Bulletin, with the justification that it is a higher level of transparency. This question deserves a separate comment, but here is a simple conclusion: the entire public procurement in Croatia constitutes about 20% of the annual GDP, with simple procurement accounting for about 14%.

This is not an insignificant amount of money and needs to be controlled, but then the principle of transparency should be extended further, to the issue of amending all concluded contracts. For them, today in the EOJN, we only see that they have been amended (often the price has increased). If we consider that the value of some contracts can significantly increase after they are concluded, it is important that the public has a more serious opportunity for insight than it currently has. Otherwise, invoking the principle of transparency in simple procurements simply does not hold water.

Additionally, the Proposal contains two provisions that will initially certainly create a new level of legal uncertainty. One allows contracting authorities to annul the public procurement procedure for the protection of the public interest, but the inconvenient part is that there is no definition of public interest, and its introduction is not foreseen in the Proposal, so here, as in the next article, practice will actually become a source of law and give us a definition of what public interest means.

The second provision stipulates the obligation of the complainant (who at that moment is neither a complainant nor a bidder) to alert the contracting authority to the illegality of the procurement documentation as a condition for filing a complaint. Simplified, there is no complaint without a warning. The idea is good and might reduce the number of so-called malicious complainants, those who used complaints on documentation to buy time. We have indeed seen many of them, especially in the most critical public procurement procedures.

Many Question Marks

However, the execution of the article is not the happiest as it leaves many question marks that will again have to be resolved in practice. How many victims there will be until practice related to both provisions is established remains to be seen.

The proposal will, unless there are additional escalations in public discourse, certainly be accepted and will quickly come into force. The proposer should better formulate unclear institutes and recognize the scenarios that may occur as a consequence in practice. Otherwise, we will do what we always do – we will solve the problem by creating a new one.