measures for identifying and reducing fraud and corruption...

Measures for Identifying and Reducing Fraud and

Corruption Risks in Public Procurement

OLAF.D.2 – Fraud Prevention, Reporting and Analysis Unit

Lisbon – 17 September 2015

Costs of corruption

Public procurement = about 20% GDP in the EU

(2010: € 2.4 trillion)

Scope of the study: 8 Member States and 5 sectors

Direct cost of corruption <2.9% , 4.4%> value of procurement published in OJ

OR

Between EUR 1 470 million and EUR 2 247 million

2

3

Clean projects Corrupt/grey projects

Average loss attributable to corruption: 13%

5% loss 18% loss

Costs of corruption

4

Direct costs of corruption in public procurement

Sector

Direct costs of corruption

(in million EUR)

% of the overall procurement value

in the sector

in the 8 Member States

Road & rail 488 –755 1.9 % to 2.9%

Water & waste 27 –38 1.8% to 2.5%

Urban/utility construction 830 - 1 141 4.8% to 6.6%

Training 26 –86 4.7 % to 15.9%

Research & Development 99 –228 1.7% to 3.9%

Table: costs of corruption by sector (Source: PwC)

Costs of corruption

Types of corrupt practices

Bid rigging

Kickbacks

Conflict of interest

Other – including deliberate mismanagement/ignorance

5

6

Type of corruption by sector

Sector Bid rigging Kickbacks Conflict

of interest Deliberate

mismanagement

Urban/utility construction 19 14 11 3

Road & Rail 10 8 4 1

Water & Waste 15 6 3 0

Training 1 3 2 1

Research & Development 12 4 2 0

Total* 57 35 22 5

Type of corruption by Member State

Member State Bid rigging Kickbacks Conflict

of interest Deliberate

mismanagement

France 6 3 5 1

Hungary 9 2 4 0

Italy 12 3 4 0

Lithuania 11 2 1 1

Netherlands 0 0 1 0

Poland 10 6 2 1

Romania 4 8 4 1

Spain 5 11 1 1

Total* 57 35 22 5

Table: types of corruption identified (Source: PwC)

Types of corruption - analysis

Public Procurement in Portugal = 2.14% of GDP (2011)

General perception of corruption: 90% of Portuguese respondents says it is widespread (EU average: 76%)

78% of the Portuguese businesses state that corruption is widespread in public procurement managed by national authorities (one of the highest in the EU, average: 56%)

68% of businesses in Portugal (the second highest percentage in the EU) see corruption as an obstacle for doing business in their country (EU average: 43%)

76% (the highest percentage in the EU) stated that the only way to succeed in business is through political connections (EU average: 47%)

7

Portugal in the reports

Portugal in the reports

Percentage of the respondents whose companies participated in public tenders for in period 2010-2013 perceived below listed practices as widespread:

72% reported specifications tailor-made for particular companies

63% observed abuse of negotiated procedures

67% noted conflicts of interest in the evaluation of the bids

65% reported collusive bidding

68% found selection or evaluation criteria unclear

2013 Eurobarometer business survey on corruption

8

9

Reactions

Red flags are:

Warning signals, hints, indicators of possible fraud

The existence of a red flag does not mean that fraud exists but that a certain area of activity needs extra attention to exclude or confirm potential fraud.

10

Fraud prevention tools – Red flags

Rigged specification:

only one or abnormally low number of bidders respond to request for bids;

similarity between specifications and winning contractor’s product or services;

complaints from other bidders;

specifications are significantly narrower or broader than similar previous requests for bids;

unusual or unreasonable specifications;

the buyer defines an item using brand name rather than generic description.

11


Collusive bidding:

winning bid is too high compared to cost estimates, published price lists, similar works or services or industry averages and fair market prices;

persistent high prices by all bidders;

bid prices drop when new bidder enters the competition;

rotation of winning bidders by region, job, type of work;

losing bidders hired as subcontractors;

unusual bid patterns (e.g. the bids are exact percentage apart, winning bid just under threshold of acceptable prices, exactly at budget price, too high, too close, too far apart, round numbers, incomplete, etc.);

12


Conflict of interests:

unexplained or unusual favouritism of a particular contractor or seller;

continued acceptance of high priced, low quality work etc.;

contracting employee fails to file or complete conflict of interest declaration;

contracting employee declines promotion to a non-procurement position;

contracting employee appears to conduct side business.

close socialisation between a contracting employee and service or product provider;

unexplained or sudden increase in wealth by the contracting employee;

13


Manipulation of bids:

complaints from bidders;

poor controls and inadequate bidding procedures;

indications of changes to bids after reception;

bids voided for errors;

a qualified bidder disqualified for questionable reasons;

job not re-bid even though fewer than the minimum number of

bids were received.

14


Split purchase:

two or more consecutive, related procurements from the same contractor just under competitive bidding or upper level review thresholds;

unjustified separation of purchases, e.g. separate contracts for labour and materials, each of which is below bidding thresholds;

sequential purchases just under the thresholds

15


16

Reactions

1. Detection of forged Documents in the field of structural actions. A practical guide for managing authorities.

2. Identification of conflict of interests in public procurement procedures in the field of structural actions.

Access to the practical guidance is restricted to Member States' staff. They can be found on SFC 2007.

17

Fraud prevention tools – Practical guides

Fraud prevention tools – Practical guides

1. Handbook on the role of auditors in fraud prevention and detection.

2. Guidelines on the National Anti-Fraud Strategies.

Developed under the umbrella of the COCOLAF subgroup;

By a working group of 11 and 8 Member States' experts;

Directed and coordinated by the Fraud prevention, reporting and analysis unit in OLAF (unit D.2);

Status: not legally binding; supporting Audit Authorities;

Both documents will soon be available in all languages on SFC 2014.

18

19

Discussion

Thank you for your participation!

Mateusz Chylarecki – Policy Analyst

OLAF.D.2 – Fraud Prevention, Reporting and Analysis Unit

OLAF - European Anti-Fraud Office European Commission

Rue Joseph II 30 B–1049 Brussels

http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud

20