Is the amendment and the new measures it introduces a major improvement from the point of view of businesses/bidders?
Yes, it significantly increases level of transparency (extended information duties of public contractors), removes financial qualification criteria that were often used in discriminatory manner, and, on the other hand, it does not impose unreasonable administrative burden on bidders.
Is there any provision in the amended act, which causes a burden or intransparency, that should have been eliminated, but has remained in the law?
Yes, the disclosure duties do not apply to small tenders, however, even small corruption in small tender is corruption. The disclosure duty includes general exemption not to disclose information which are protected according to legal regulations. This may be interpreted very broadly. It should rather be limited to information directly protected by law or to registered subjects of intellectual property.
How can the business sector continuously promote transparent public tendering, ie, is it all over now after the amendment had been passed?
The business should control public contractors whether they are acting in compliance with the disclosure regulations and should not be shy to notify breaches of the law to the Competition Office. In addition to this, it is of vital importance that both the state and companies co-operate in the refinement of the public sector procurement. Business entities can not only point to problems and wait that the state will solve everything. This is why we formed the Coalition for Transparent Business and signed the ethical codex of public bidders. Furthermore, companies should adopt internal ethical guidelines and require compliance with ethical values in business not only from themselves, but from business partners as well. In Siemens, we adopted extensive compliance program. It consists of clearly specified guidelines and trainings for all employees to help them prevent from any misconduct within and outside the company.
19th June 2018