Public Procurement

Public Contracts Regulations 2105 - Regulation 46

Pedro Telles

Apr 30, 2015 — 1 min read

Regulation 46 - Division of contracts into lots

One of the biggest changes introduced by Directive 2014/24/EU is the new preference for division into lots. The (flawed) logic behind idea is to make procurement easier, more accessible for smaller suppliers by dividing contracts into smaller chunks. This logic is flawed in two accounts: one, it destroys the value of aggregation by increasing the transaction costs for the contracting authority (and to a certain extent) to suppliers who want to bid for multiple lots as they now need to submit multiple bids. Two, it is a competition law nightmare by facilitating collusion immensely, particularly if similarly sized lots are used. Issue two will be more pressing on sectors where there are either limited suppliers or where collusion is already prevalent (yes, *that* industry). I suspect Albert will hammer this point home later today. UPDATE: Here it is.

Thankfully both Article 46 of the Directive 2014/24/EU and Regulation 46 stop short of mandating the use of lots or prescribing any particular strategy to undertake them. The key point is that although lots should be used, they do not have to and all the contracting authority needs to provide is a justification for it. That's it. I suspect "competition fears" would make a good excuse as any other.

In terms of rules, if lots are to be used the ifs, buts and hows need to be spelled out from the start in the tender documents or contract notice. Therefore, any limitations on the number of lots that may be won or the obligation/foreclosure to bid to all lots has to be disclosed.

Paragraph 6 also provides contracting authorities with the possibility of combining lots, again under the condition of informing all putative participants at the start of the procedure that this is a possibility and how it can be done. I am struggling to see how this can be done transparently as different combinations of lots may lead to different winners, therefore creating the risk of steering contracts to a preferred supplier. Having said that, it also creates uncertainty into the system and the extra variable may create issues for cartels and candidate collusion. What is your take Albert?

On case C-652/22 Kolin Inşaat Turizm Sanayi ve Ticaret

The CJEU laid down early this week a fairly important judgment on third country access to procurement. On case C-652/22 Kolin Inşaat Turizm Sanayi ve Ticaret the Court concluded that economic operators from third countries neither party to the GPA nor with whom the EU has a deal are

All steam ahead with the revision of the procurement Directives

A couple of weeks ago a little birdie told me the Commission wanted to get the ball rolling on the revision of the procurement legal framework within the first 100 days of its term. Well, looks like they want to hit the ground running with the evaluation of the current

The Portuguese Audit Court finds systemic abuse of direct awards

Back in 2021 the then Portuguese government decided to make procurement more flexible as to ensure the Recovery and Resilience Facility money was spent quickly. In 2023 I warned about some of the risks that the reform had introduced here and here. Fast forward to 2024 and the Portuguese Audit

The Public Procurement Data Space is upon us

The Commission launched last week the PPDS, a service that is expected to aggregate data about public procurement in the EU. In essence it takes the data included in the eForms filled in by contracting authorities and makes it available to anyone. For example, it is possible to check for

Read more

On case C-652/22 Kolin Inşaat Turizm Sanayi ve Ticaret

All steam ahead with the revision of the procurement Directives

The Portuguese Audit Court finds systemic abuse of direct awards

The Public Procurement Data Space is upon us