Measures for Identifying and Reducing Fraud and Corruption Risks in Public Procurement OLAF.D.2 – Fraud Prevention, Reporting and Analysis Unit Budapest – 11 December 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 value of procurement published in OJ OR Between EUR million and EUR million 2

3 Clean projects Corrupt/grey projects Average loss attributable to corruption: 13% 5% loss18% 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 – % to 2.9% Water & waste 27 –381.8% to 2.5% Urban/utility construction % to 6.6% Training 26 –864.7 % to 15.9% Research & Development 99 –2281.7% 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 SectorBid riggingKickbacks Conflict of interest Deliberate mismanagement Urban/utility construction Road & Rail10841 Water & Waste15630 Training1321 Research & Development12420 Total* Type of corruption by Member State Member StateBid riggingKickbacks Conflict of interest Deliberate mismanagement France6351 Hungary9240 Italy12340 Lithuania11211 Netherlands0010 Poland10621 Romania4841 Spain51111 Total* Table: types of corruption identified (Source: PwC) Types of corruption - analysis

Public Procurement in Hungary 5.66% of GDP (2011) 4,7% (2012) 8,2% (2013) General perception of corruption: 89% of Hungarian respondents says it is widespread (EU average: 76%) 47% of the Hungarian businesses state that corruption is widespread in public procurement managed by national authorities (EU average: 56%) 59% of businesses in Hungary see corruption as an obstacle for doing business in their country (EU average: 43%) 7 Hungary in the reports

Percentage of the respondents whose companies participated in public tenders for in period perceived below listed practices as widespread:  64% reported specifications tailor-made for particular companies  48% observed abuse of negotiated procedures  42% noted conflicts of interest in the evaluation of the bids  58% reported collusive bidding  48% found selection or evaluation criteria unclear  42% considered abusal of emergency grounds to avoid competitive procedures  48% reported involvement of bidders in the design of the specifications 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 Fraud prevention tools – Red flags

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 Fraud prevention tools – Red flags

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 Fraud prevention tools – Red flags

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 Fraud prevention tools – Red flags

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 Fraud prevention tools – Red flags

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. 3. Handbook on the role of auditors in fraud prevention and detection. 4. Guidelines on the National Anti-Fraud Strategies. All documents is available in all languages on SFC Fraud prevention tools – Practical guides

Practical guides in preparatory phase: National Anti-Fraud Strategy in practice Identifying conflict of interest situations in the Agriculture sector 18

19 Discussion

Thank you for your participation! Frank Michlik – Head of Unit OLAF.D.2 – Fraud Prevention Unit OLAF - European Anti-Fraud Office European Commission Rue Joseph II 30 B–1049 Brussels 20