1. Measures for Identifying and Reducing Fraud and Corruption Risks in Public Procurement OLAF.D.2 – Fraud Prevention Unit Bratislava – 13.03.2014

2. Costs of Corruption Scope of the study: 8 Member States and 5 sectors Public procurement = about 20% GDP in the EU (2010: € 2.4 trillion) Direct cost of corruption value of procurement published in OJ = EUR 1 470 million and EUR 2 247 million 2

3. 3 Clean projects Corrupt/grey projects Average loss attributable to corruption: 13% 5% loss18% loss Costs of Corruption

4. 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 –7551.9 % to 2.9% Water & waste 27 –381.8% to 2.5% Urban/utility construction 830 - 1 1414.8% 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

5. Types of corruption Bid rigging Kickbacks Conflict of interest Other – including deliberate mismanagement/ignorance 5

6. 6 Type of corruption by sector SectorBid riggingKickbacks Conflict of interest Deliberate mismanagement Urban/utility construction1914113 Road & Rail10841 Water & Waste15630 Training1321 Research & Development12420 Total*5735225 Type of corruption by Member State Member StateBid riggingKickbacks Conflict of interest Deliberate mismanagement France6351 Hungary9240 Italy12340 Lithuania11211 Netherlands0010 Poland10621 Romania4841 Spain51111 Total*5735225 Table: types of corruption identified (Source: PwC) Types of corruption - analysis

7. 7 Type of corruption by Member State Member StateBid riggingKickbacks Conflict of interest Deliberate mismanagement Hungary9 (60%)240 Lithuania11 (73.3%)211 Poland10 (52.6%)621 Romania4841 Total*34 (51.5%)18113 Table: types of corruption identified (Source: PwC) Types of corruption - analysis

8. 8 Discussion

9. Slovakia in the reports The risk of corruption in the allocation of EU funds creates a reputational risk for the funds and threatens their efficient and effective use. The EU Anti-Corruption Report – Annex – Slovakia p.8 Current international indicators suggest that Slovakia ranks low in terms of perceived corruption. Concerns also exist with regard to the capacity of judicial authorities to investigate and prosecute corruption offences. Despite greater transparency, irregularities in public procurement procedures have also persisted. The average and median number of bids are among the lowest in the EU, indicating a very low overall level of public procurement competition. Assessment of the 2013 national reform programme and stability programme for Slovakia 9

10. Public Procurement in Slovakia = € 15.61 billion (2010)  57% respondents prevented from winning because of corruption  84% respondents reported tailor made specifications  77% respondents observed collusive bidding  63% respondents noted conflict of interests  62% respondents pointed to unclear selection and evaluation criteria 2013 Eurobarometer Study 10 Slovakia in the reports

11. Discussion 11

12. 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. 12 Fraud prevention tools – Red flags

13. 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. 13 Fraud prevention tools – Red flags

14. 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); 14 Fraud prevention tools – Red flags

15. 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; contacting 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; 15 Fraud prevention tools – Red flags

16. 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. 16 Fraud prevention tools – Red flags

17. 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 17 Fraud prevention tools – Red flags

18. 18 Discussion

19. Detection of forged Documents in the field of structural actions. A practical guide for managing authorities. Identification of conflict of interests in public procurement procedures in the field of structural actions. 19 Fraud prevention tools – Practical guides

20. 20 Fraud prevention tools – Transparency Retrieved from http://datanest.fair-play.sk on February 6, 2014http://datanest.fair-play.sk

21. 21 Discussion

22. Thank you for your participation! 22 Frank Michlik – Head of Unit Piotr Baczmański – Policy Analyst OLAF.D.2 – Fraud Prevention Unit OLAF - European Anti-Fraud Office European Commission Rue Joseph II 30 B–1049 Brussels http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud