Ref. Ares(2013)2826823 - 05/08/2013 Ref. Ares(2012)774012 - 27/06/2012 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL REGIONAL POLICY Audit The Director Brussels, REGIO J2/BS/id/ D(2012) 175473 Subject: Audit of the functioning of the management and control systems as required by articles 60 (a) and 60 (b) of (EC) Regulation 1083/2006 and articles 13(2) to 13(4) off (EC) Regulation 1828/2006 Audit of Regional Development CCI 2007RO161PO001 Ref.: Operational Programme Mission No. 2011/RO/REGIO/J2/956/1 (to be used in following correspondence) Your Excellency I am writing to inform you that the Directorate General Regional Policy has analysed the reply received from the national authorities to the related draft audit report of the audit mission referred to above, namely your replies dated 11 October (ARES 1076539), 24 October (ARES 1129227), 31 October 2011 and 22 February 2012 (ARES 212310). Please find enclosed the final audit report setting out the Commission's final position on all the remaining open findings and related actions and recommendations. The irregular expenditure detected during the audit and the proposed financial corrections is presented in Annex: II. I request that you treat the enclosed audit report as confidential until the follow up procedure set below has been brought to a final conclusion. If the whole or part of the report is transmitted to persons concerned by the audit to enable them to provide comments, please ensure that the information set out in this paragraph accompanies the transmission. His Excellency Mr Mihnea loan Motoc Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Permanent Representative Permanent Representation of Romania to the EU Rue Montoyer / Montoyerstraat 12 lOOOBruxelles/Brussel Commission européenne, B-1049 Bruxelles / Europese Commissie, В-1049 Brussel - Belgium. Telephone: (32-2) 299 11 11. http://ec.europa.eu/comm/regionalj3olicy/ Office: 1 G:\13-AUDIT MISSIONS 2007-13 PROGR PERIOD\EPM Bridging the Assurance Gap\RO\2011 RO REGIO J2 956 1 Regional OP\REPORTS\Fmal reporRRO follow up letter EN.doc The attention of the national authorities is drawn to the fact that the present letter can lead  to financial corrections decided by the Commission under Article 99 of Regulation (EC)  No 1083/2006. To avoid any misunderstanding, the legal procedure is set out in Annex Ш  to the present letter.  In  accordance  with  this  procedure,  the  national  authorities  may  either  inform  the  Commission of their formal acceptance of the financial corrections proposed, or object to  the observations made by the Comthission, in which case they will be invited to a hearing  by  the  Commission  at  which  both  sides  shall  make  efforts  to  reach  an  agreement  regarding the observations and the conclusions to be drawn from them.  The national authorities  are requested to inform the Commission on the implementation  of actions  and recommendations  set  out  in the  final  audit report  within two  months  of  receipt  of  the  national  language  version  of  this  final  audit  report  by  the  Permanent  Representation.  Given that any suspension or reduction of the Community assistance to the projects may  adversely affect final beneficiaries, I therefore formally request that you ensure that these  persons are duly informed  and placed in a position to effectively  make known their views  on  the  information  on  which  the  proposed  decision  is  based.  I  would  be  grateful  to  receive any information on this matter.  Furthermore, you are requested to confirm that findings which have a financial impact on  the EU budget  exceeding  €10.000 have been reported  to  OLAF in the IMS  system  for  reporting irregularities and to provide the relevant references.  Yours  faithfully  Enclosures: Copy: Annex I - Commission's observations, conclusions and recommendations Annex Π - Summary of irregular expenditure and proposed financial corrections Annex Ш - Procedure for suspension of payments and application of financial corrections Mr Friptu Managing Authority Operational Programme Regional 17 Apolodor Street Bucharest Romania Mr Popa Romanian Court of Accounts Audit Authority 6 Stavropoleos Street, Sector 3 Bucharest Romania Ms Levy (DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, Unit ffi) Mr Johnston (DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Unit Fl) Mr. Popens (DG Regional Policy, Convergence, Competitiveness and Crossborder programmes) Mr Seyler (DG Regional Policy, Directorate I) Ms Martinez Sarasola (DG Regional Policy, Unit II) Mr Lopez Lledo, DG Regional policy. Unit A3 Mr Grant, DG Regional Policy, Unit B3 Mr Sébert, DG Regional Policy, Unit Jl Mr Wiedner (DG Internal Market and Services, Unit C3) Mr Cipriani - European Court of Auditors OLAF audit reports Ref. Ares(2012)774012 - 27/06/2012 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL REGIONAL POLICY Audit  Control and audit ANNEX  I  ­  COMMISSION'S  RECOMMENDATIONS  OBSERVATIONS,  CONCLUSIONS  AND  Analysis  of  the  measures  taken  under  the  action  plan  for  the  remedial  of  systemic  weaknesses  in  relation  to  key  requirement  4:  Adequate  management  verifications  (in  particular  public procurement verifications)  1.  Significant  deficiencies  identified:  The  audit  found  significant  irregularities  in  relation  to  public  procurement  process  for  the  contracts awarded under the projects selected in the sample, namely:  i)  use of discriminatory technical criteria for selection stage of restricted procedures;  ii)  unjustified  use of accelerated procedures;  iii) incorrect  use  of  Article  122  of  national  Ordinance  34/2006  (additional  works  contracted  as  similar  works  through  negotiated  procedure  without  publishing  a  contract notice).  On the basis of the projects  based findings and due to the fact that the irregularities were not  detected  by the  Managing Authority,  ANRMAP  and  UCVAP  (as national  bodies  for  public  procurement  verifications),  nor  by  Certifying  Authority,  the  deficiency  was  considered  systemic. Therefore,  remedial  measures were  included  in the  action plan to be  implemented  by the MS (see Table 2 to the audit report).  2. Member state reply:  Romanian  authorities  replied  on  11 October  2011  (ARES  1076539). Additional  information  was  received  on  conflict  of  interest  by  latter  ARES  1129227/24.10.2011.  On  31  October  2011,  Romanian  authorities  submitted  the  audit  reports  issued  by AA  on the  compliance  of  UCVAP  and  ANRMAP.  By  letter  of  22  February  2012  (ARES  212310),  the  Romanian  authorities accepted the financial corrections proposed by the Commission under findings no.  2, 3, 4 and 5.  Further to the meetings which took place on  16/17 and 28 November between  Commission's  services and Romanian authorities (MA, AA and ACIS), further  commitments were taken by  Romanian authorities by letter Ares(2011)1304614 ­ 05/12/2011.  Tables  1 and 2 below provide more detailed  information  on the information  submitted by the  Romanian authorities.  3. Commission  analysis:  ţ  \  i)  Effective  functionine  of  the  manasement  and  control  system  with  regard  to  public  procurement verifications  a) The Commission acknowledges that the tasks and responsibilities  of all bodies involved in  public  procurement  have  been  better  defined  and  that  the  accountability  of  ANRMAP  and  UCVAP  has  been  formally  reinforced.  Following  the  assessment  of  the  cooperation  agreements  concluded  between  MA,  ANRMAP  and  UCVAP  on  9  September  2011,  the  Commission draw attention on the involvement of ANRMAP in the ex­post verifications, the  Romanian  authorities  accepted  the  recommendation  and  concluded  Addendum  no.  1 to  the  agreement on 24 November 2011.  b)  Commission  takes  note  that  ANRMAP  issued,  as  requested,  new  guidelines  for  the  interpretation  of  public  procurement  law.  Nonetheless,  by  letter  Ares(2011)1252930  ­ 23/11/2011, Commission draw attention on:  ­ Non­retroactivity  of the new guidelines for the interpretation of the public procurement law;  ­ Proportionality on the application of the general principles of public procurement.  c) By letter of 31 October 2011, the AA submitted two audit reports on the assessment of the  conformity  of the ex­ante system for the verification  of public procurement. Even though, the  reports  confirm  the  compliance  of UCVAP  and ANRMAP, the  effective  functioning  of the  management  and  control  system  in respect to public procurement  verifications  could not be  tested.  Recommendation:  AA should confirm based a representative  sample of transactions, the effective  functioning  of  the  new  set  up  for  management  verifications,  notably  in  respect  to  public  procurement  verification.  if)  Corrective  measures  to  be  taken  in  respect  to sienifìcant deficiencies identified rescreenins of past expenditure by MA As part of the action plan, the managing authority was requested to verify  all works contracts  under the priority axis 2.1 to screen for the existence of discriminatory selection criteria in the  tender  notice,  unjustified  use  of  accelerated  procedure  and  additional  works  contracted  as  similar works.  MA  for  Regional  Development  OP has  screened  all  works  contracts  under  axis  2.1, found  irregularities  and  proposed  corrections  in  amount  EUR  20.5  million  for  in  29  contracts,  representing 2.7% of the contracted amount.  Following the review of the above mentioned action based on a sample of operations already  verified  by  MA,  the  Commission  was  not  satisfied  with  regard  to  the  quantification  of the  financial  impact  of the  errors  found  by  the  Romanian  authorities. In  addition, the  proposed  corrections did not take into account notably cases of unjustified  use of accelerated procedure  and shortened deadlines. Moreover, managing authority did not carry out specific  verification  with regard to conflict of interests.  Following the audit carried out for the assessment of the verifications  performed  by MA, the  audit  authority  identified  irregularities  based  on  which  financial  corrections  were  proposed  following the audit work carried out within the context of rescreening all public procurement contracts at national level, amount to 71.85 million Euro for the Regional OP out of which 62.60 million Euro are related to Axis 2.1. The proportion of corrections proposed for Axis 2.1 is 10.60% of the value of the contracts signed. The results of the AA's audit work confirm the assessment of the Commission on the verifications carried out on a sample of contracts checked by MA. The Commission considered that MA did not identify all errors and underestimated the level of necessary corrections to be made. In particular, MA did not identify all cases of shortened deadlines and unjustified use of accelerated procedure. Recommendation: Audit work should be carried out by AA in order to follow­up the effective correction process. Ш) Additional actions requested a) Fraud prevention and detection /conflict of interest verifications In order to implement the legislative framework on the prevention and detection of cases of conflict of interests, necessary tools should be made available for the managing authorities to carry out consistent verifications. The procedural framework should be aligned accordingly and management authorities should include checks on conflicts of interests. In cases of suspicion of fraud or conflict of interest, the expenditure under the related operation should be decertified until the finalisation of the investigation. Recommendation : As concerns the suspicion of fraud and conflict of interest cases, Commission recommends: © awareness campaigns, and β training initiative on the basis of a detailed vademecum (legislative frame, institutions' roles, tools, code of conduct and transparency initiative) at two levels: (a) managing authorities and intermediate bodies and (b) final beneficiaries with a clear timetable, to be implemented regularly by MA; β inclusion of the conflict of interest issue within the management verifications; » development of specific tools to allow for the verification on conflict of interest; β expenditure incurred under contracts for which suspicions of fraud arise should not be certified up to the end of the investigations carried out by the appropriate bodies. b) Other structural weaknesses The assessment of the information submitted by the Romanian authorities revealed certain structural problems of a systemic nature which might have impact for all operational programmes. Following the review of the information submitted by MA, it was noticed that decisions on establishing irregularities were often directly linked to the recovery process. This state of facts  lead to inconsistent  approaches  as different  decisions had been taken in respect  to similar findings.  In addition, Commission could not identify  the relevant Article of Ordmance  66/2011 which  regulates the cases of disagreements between managing authorities and audit authority.  Recommendation :    Decisions  on  establishing  irregularities  should  be  decoupled  from  the  recovery  process.  Managing  authorities  (management  verifications)  should  decide  on  corrections  for  expenditure  to  be  certified  to  the  Commission  regardless  of  the  subsequent  recovery  process  at national  level.  In the  case  of the Regional  operational programme  it was  also  noticed  that  the  corrective  measures  were  not  applied  consistently  for  similar  type  of  findings.    The  legal  framework  should provide  for  the  corrective  mechanism  to be  implemented  in  cases of disagreements between managing authorities and audit authority.  As concerns the recommendations mentioned under points i) ­  iv), further  commitments have  already  been  taken  by  the  national  authorities  through  Ares(2011)1304614  ­  05/12/2011  following  the meeting held between  Commission's  services and the Romanian  authorities on  28 November.  Based  on the results  of the  actions plan  already  implemented  in  2011 by  MA  for  Regional  Development  OP and based  on the  further  commitments  taken by the Romanian  authorities  through  the  above  mentioned  letter,  Commission  services  decided  for  the  Regional  Operational Programme on a provisional  correction of  10% to be applied to the past and new  expenditure  by the Romanian  authorities  and to be withheld  from  the payment  claims up to  the  end  of  the  contradictory  procedure1.  By  Commission's  letter  of  1 of  March  2012  (Ref.  Ares(2012)242234  ­ 01/03/2012), Romanian authorities were reminded the provisional  status  of the withholding measures which are to be imposed by end of June 2012.  1  See DG Regio letter Ares(2011)1399042 ­ 22/12/2011.  Ref. Ares(2012)774012 - 27/06/2012 ANNEX I I ­ SUMMARY O F IRREGULAR EXPENDITURE AND PROPOSED FINANCIAL CORRECTIONS Amount on irregular Finding ШшШе ■^ЗО^щШрщоЕЙиЙ!^? Ш!ОС1ЩШ<Ш ш EpMŕacting Щ Ш р й ^ : p M í Buzäü :.'Írol^ct>cddè:::rSmSÍ1475:i:l;^ m ^ огЩ1си1а кт 1Й; BiMçialtÇOTjreçtion ?; Amount of financial assistance1 :ЙСОгШсиОпв; 47.724.025  86.5%  25%  10.320.320,41  47.724.025  86.5%  10%  4.085.176,54  89.916.434,41  86.5%  25%  19.444.428,94  173.667.721,41 lei  86.5%  25%  37.164.892,38  mm Cp]^rąćting:Autliority:M^^T  Contract; JVorķ.,  contract­ Discriminatory technical eligibility  criteria  Unjustified  accelerated procedure  based on ANRMAP Order 51/2009  Gontractmg Authority : UAT Teleorman  Project code: SMIS 1099  Contract: Work  Discriminatory technical eligibility  contract'  criteria  Contracting Authority: UAT Ilfov  Project  code 4272  Unjustified  accelerated procedure  Works contract ­ 5.  based on ANRMAP Order 51/2009  ШШШШШ аЩщЩЖЩщ^^^Ш  шшш^шшшш  International (works  for 9 projects)  Works contract ­ Ineligible expenditure related to  additional works.  Framework  Noncompliance! with the contractual  agreement  for  provisions  :  supervising services:  (covers supervision  for 33 work sites)  173.667.721,41 lei  86.5%  Irregular  expenditure not  expressed in  percentage  3,627,416.08  (in  relation to project  SMIS code 4272)  Payments related the  ЕнШННь subsequent  contracts should be  made at the  percentage initially  tendered (0.35% of  the value of  supervised works)  86.5%  Irregular  expenditure not  expressed in  percentage  138.278,42  (difference  between the amounts  requested under the  subsequent contracts  and amounts paid by  the MA calculated  based on 0.35% up to  June 2012)  Note: When several deficiencies are found in the same system, the flat rates of correction are not cumulated, the most serious deficiency  being taken as an  indication of the risks presented by the control system as a whole. (Guidelines on the principles, criteria and indicative scales to be applied by Commission  departments in determining financial corrections under Article 39(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999.  Ref. Ares(2012)774012 ­ 27/06/2012  ANNEX ΠΙ ­  PROCEDURE FOR SUSPENSION OF PAYMENTS AND APPLICATION OF  FINANCIAL  CORRECTIONS  (1)  Under Article 92(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, the Commission  shall suspend the interim payments in question.  (2)  Under Article 99(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, the Commission  may make financial corrections by cancelling all or part of the Community contribution  to an operational programme where, after carrying out the necessary examination, it  concludes that:  (a) there is a serious deficiency in the management and control system of the  programme which has put at risk the Community contribution already paid to the  programme;  (b) expenditure contained in a certified statement of expenditure is irregular and  has not been corrected by the Member State prior to the opening of the correction  procedure under this paragraph;  (c) a Member State has not complied with its obligations under Article 98 prior to  the opening of the correction procedure under this paragraph.  (3)  Under Article  100(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No  1083/2006, before taking a  decision on a financial correction, the Commission shall open the procedure by informing  the Member State of its provisional conclusions and requesting the Member State to  submit its comments within two months.  Where the Commission proposes a financial correction on the basis of extrapolation or at  a flat rate, the Member State shall be given the opportunity to demonstrate, through an  examination of the documentation concerned, that the actual extent of irregularity was  less than the Commission's assessment. In agreement with the Commission, the Member  State may limit the scope of this examination to an appropriate proportion or sample of  the documentation concerned. Except in duly justified  cases, the time allowed for this  examination shall not exceed a further period of two months after the two­month period  referred to in point (3).  (4)  Under Article  100(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, the Commission  shall take account of any evidence supplied by the Member State within the time limits  mentioned in point (3).  (5)  Under Article 100(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, where the  Member State does not accept the provisional conclusions of the Commission, the  Member State shall be invited to a hearing by the Commission, in which both sides in  cooperation based on the partnership shall make efforts to reach an agreement concerning  the observations and the conclusions to be drawn from them.  (6)  Under Article 100(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, in case of an  agreement, the Member State may reuse the Community funds concerned in conformity  with the second subparagraph of Article 98(2).  (7)  Under Article 100(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, in the absence  of agreement, the Commission shall take1 a decision on the financial correction within six  months of the date of the hearing taking account of all information and observations  submitted during the course of the procedure. If no hearing takes place, the six­month  period shall begin to run two months after the date of the letter of invitation sent by the  Commission.  LIST OF ACRONYMS  AA:  Audit Authority  ANRMAP:  Authority for Regulating and Monitoring Public Procurement  ATU:  Administrative Territorial Unit  CA:  Contracting Authority  CNSC:  National Council for Solving Complaints  DG REGIO:  Directorate General for Regional Policy  EPM:  Enquiry Planning Memorandum  ERDF:  European Regional Development Fund  MA:  Managing Authority  UCVAP:  Unit for Coordination and Verification  of Public Procurement  TABLEI FINDINGS AND ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN/ RECOMMENDATIONS PROJECT AUDITS (ON-THE-SPOT VISITS) Ш ¡ЕЩйрщвШ! iiilfflffiBilii? ШШШШШ SIPRIÖÍRÍÍYI УеШШюпШотЕЯт Iifflliiï3li KEY REQUIREMENT 4: ADEQUATE MANAGEMENT VERIFICATIONS (Ж PARTICULAR PUBLIC PROCUREMENT) Deficiencies identified SiVIIS 1475 - Road rehabilitation within the project "Modernization of infrastructure for access to tourist areas in Buzau County" (57.89kni) ; Gon tract: ; ШхШ servièe ; eroïraet ;;^lue!pfthe;^tract:;25e;rø^ йРгосигШШгршсеаиге^Орш^^^ 1. Irregularity related to the evaluation process The lowest offer (approx. 33.750 EUR) was excluded based on inconsistency in the tender documents submitted by the bidder. The number of reports to The guidelines a) MA (COCOF 07/0037/(J3EN) on financial corrections due 'to noncompliance with public procurement rales stipulates 2%, 5% or 10% corrections a) 60 days Low '' For approximation reasons, the EU exchange rate of May 2011 was used. (lEuro=4.081 Lei) Recommendation not accepted Commission's services take note Checks were carried out in accordance with oftheMS's reply. Government Emergency Order No 66/2011 and Findings Note No 68459/15 September This finding is 2011 was prepared considered closed. According to the Findings Note, the control unit found from the documents subject to ÍN 0 "  ElNÖING  ACTION TO BE TAKEN/  teGOMMĖNDATIONŠ  RESPÓNSIBÜE  BODY  DEADLINE  (DAYS)  be provided by the audit company was 7+2 at page 28 and 2 at page 29. This seems to be a formal error occurred while drafting the offer. (depending on the seriousness of the issue) for incorrect application of certain ancillary elements of the public procurement According to Article 78 in Government Decision procedure. 925/2006, the evaluation Taking into account committee has the that the evaluation obligation to request committee, although necessary clarifications obliged, did not related to formal aspects request further in order to have the information and confirmation on the information provided in bearing in mind that the contract was the tender document. under the threshold of UCVAP and CNSC the Directive, we should have taken into propose 2% financial account the provisions of correction to be Article 78 in the applied to the value Ordinance 34/2006 of the contract (Point 12 in guidance for when issuing their financial corrections opinion. due to public procurement). PIUOMTY  :■: ACCEPTANCE :ΒΥ ^THE ;MEMBER ; STATE / GOMMENTS FROM FINAL POSITION OF THE COMMISSION :MEDIUM/:  .­•'■'Low:: <:'■ checks, which are kept at the registered office of the Ministry of Regional Development and Tourism (MRDT), as well as from those sent by the beneficiary in the period of the checks, that no irregularities were identified in the development of the public procurement procedure in connection with the assessment process because the tender which was rejected as non­compliant did not meet the requirements in the tender documents and in the clarification posted in SEAP on 22 June 2009 regarding the number of audit reports to be prepared under the contract, as follows: ® "Question: How many reports must be issued? • Response: 7. One report in each of the 6th. 10th. 14th. 18th. 22аа and 26"' month, as well as one final report." The control unit considers that, according to the findings, it is clear that 7 audit reports had to be prepared under the contract. The rejected tenderer undertook in its technical offer to prepare either 9 audit reports or only two audit reports, according to the action plan committed to in its offer. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of. Article 81 of Government Decision No 925/2006, which provides for the obligation of the evaluation committee to reject unacceptable and non­compliant tenders, the Contracting Authority proceeded correctly шш : ШшошШ Я11йвШ11 11 ¡Hïliiiii lilfflöSilll when it rejected the tender of еДДРИИРДИ^Щ*" as non­compliant because it failed to comply with the provisions in the tender documents, more specifically as regards the number of audit reports requested. We send you included with the response all the substantiating documents which led to the justification of the conclusions in Findings Note No 68456/15 September 2011 Considering the above, the suspicion of irregularity is not confirmed, and the control unit did not identify irregularities in the procurement process relating to the audit services contract, as referred to in Government Emergency Order No 66/2011 on the prevention, identification and sanctioning of irregularities occurred in connection with the procurement and use of European funds and/or their related national public funds. ¡IÍÍÍ! l! iÍ lllffl 2. Discriminatory Action a) MA; technical selection ANRMAP Taking into account criteria 60 days High Initial position expressed Recommendation not accepted by MS: The Commission's services take note of the information N° FINDING A C T I O N T Ó Β Γ Τ Α Ι Ο Ε Ν / RECOMMENDATIONS REStONSĮBLE  BÓDY  D E A D P P  ; (DAYS)  Applicable  legislation  the financial implications, and the fact the Commission's services consider the procedure as a "quasi­direct", 100% financial correction is proposed to be applied to the value of the contract. Article  23,  paragraph  8  of the Directive  2004/18,  transposed  in  Article  38  of  ordinance  34/2006,  states:  "Unless  justified  by  the  subject  matter  of  the  contract,  technical  specifications  shall  not  refer  to  a  specific  make  or  source.  or  a  particular  process,  or  to  Horizontal action trade  marks,  patents,  action plan. types  or  a specific  origin  See Table 2 or  production  with  the  effect  of  favouring  or  eliminating  certain  undertakings  or  certain  products.  Such  reference  shall  be  permitted  on  an  exceptional  basis,  where  a sufficiently  precise  and  intelligible  description  of  the  subject­matter  of  the  contract  pursuant  to  paragraphs  3  and  4  is  not possible¿ such reference shall be accompanied by the words 'or equivalent'." Facts: First, the contracting authority established a detailed list of PRIORITY  Л Н Е M E M B E R Š T A T E i Ļ.: ' ■ lįsĄliPOSITIOPi OF THE  :: ":  CÒMJVnSSIOrí įV Z:  ŕíĽow  Checks were carried out in accordance with Gove^iment Qrder No 79/2003 and Findings Report No 61474/01 August 20y..._was prepared as a result thereof. According to this report, the control unit found the following from the documents subject to checks, which were kept at the registered office of MRDT and which were sent by the beneficiary to be included with the financing application, the applications for reimbursement, and in the period of the checks: • ­ ­ ­ provided MS. by the Commission's services close the finding. In respect to the use of discriminatory criteria, a 25% financial correction shall be applied to As regards the use of the qualification the value of the ana selection criteria: contract (point 7 of The invitation to tendè^^as­ r sent for the guidelines on publication in SEAP and OJEU the financial The Evaluation Committee considered as corrections). unacceptable the tenders which were submitted with a large number of Due to suspicions documents missing, as required in the of fraud, tender documents. expenditure under As regards the list of in situ cold recycling this contract should equipments, they can be found in the not be declared technical solution established by the until the designer, according to which the whole finalisation of the technological process is carried out on investigation. If site, i.e. in situ, on the site of the road, by fraud is proven by a set of equipments: investigations, a β a water tank financial correction ® a hot bitumen tank of 100% of the ® a binder spreader value of the contract shall be © a plant for the mixture of components applied. «> a recycler • compacting cylinders. Among these, the recycler has the main ш ШШШп BÖDYi: 1ш! equipment to be in the possession or at the disposal of the candidates without permitting the use of equivalent equipment for the selection stage of the restricted public procedure used. For example, in situ cold recycling equipment. The contracting authority could not justify through the technical design the need to use this specific process. Following the selection stage only one company out of six compUed with all technical eligibility criteria. As a consequence, the financial offer was submitted only by one company in the second stage of the procurement process. The contracting authority's set up of detailed technical eligibility criteria lead to unjustified obstacles to the opening up of public function because it cuts the deteriorated road, kneads it and mixes it with the added binder and then it lays it back. The recycler is not a process in itself, it is a piece of equipment required to be included in the list of equipments according to the technical solution, which was to be applied on the road sections where the designer deemed it necessary. No particular equipment make was required ¡for such a technological process, but merely a set of equipments which, according to their specificity, contribute to the cold "in situ" stabilization of the mixing materials according to the technical solution established by the designer, i ­ ­ With j regard to the decision of the ÍE^t lodged an objection in which it stated that I the Contracting Authority used technical criteria deemed unjustified obstacles to the participation in the public procurement procedure With I Letter No 17014/3225­C8/9 July 2010ļ  the  National  Council  for  the  Settlement of Objections communicated to  the Contracting Authority its Decision No  3465^8/3225  of 7 July 2010, whereby  it  rejected  the  objection  lodged ЬуяЕШИИ»  ДЩрИИИЬяпг! ordered further  proceedings  considering  that  the  latter  did  not  provide  proof  that  it  owned  the  machines,  installations  and  technical  equipments  concerned.  Moreover,  some  10  ■Ш) :Acpn^;TQ;BE:TÄÍpN/;;: :tmmįGi  IteSPÖNSÏBLE TSOOÝ " 1)ΕΑΪΐ;ΐ ΝΕ:  PŔÍORIÍV  :;:;Нюн/:;1:Ь ^ G E Ï P T ^ G E : B Y T H E ; M M S È R S T A T E / GOMMENTS FROM FINAL POSITION OF THE GÖMMissroN fiÖAYS)  procurement competition. to Therefore, the basic public procurement principles of equal treatment and non­ discrimination and the one of sound financial management, are not complied with. Secoūdlv. ANRMAP and MA in its supervisory role) did not identify this specific situation during their verification rented machines and equipments were specified, but the tenderer failed to submit the lease contracts concluded in this respect. Thus, the control unit has found that there are no sufficient grounds to substantiate a breach from the part of the beneficiary in the provisions of Article 178(2) of Government Emergency Order No 34/2006 and Article 8 of Government Decision No 925/2006. « ­ With regard to the conflict of interests The control unit carried out checks, including at the National Trade Registry Office (NTRO), which sent the summary of the companies involved (from all viewpoints, namely the associates, the stock capital, shareholding, secondary offices etc) for Щ Ц ^ М ^ Щ Щ and Ш (т^ш;ттт,шшеШт:1уЩ which does not reveal any direct connection with any of the persons involved in the implementation of the project from Teleorman County Council. ­ Thus, considering the provisions of Section 8 ­ Rules to prevent the conflict of interests in Government Emergency Order No 34/2006, no elements have been identified to ascertain the existence of a conflict of interests under the procurement process for a works contract. In conclusion, as a result of the checks on the aspects which were notified, the control unit did not find any irregularities, as 11 SÍM дашю& ¡EiNÆIqsifKrø­qpffiBffi; Booti defined in Government Order No 79/2003 on the control and recovery of Community funds, and of the related co-financing funds unduly used, as approved as amended by Law No 529/2003, as subsequently amended and supplemented. We send you included with the response all the substantiating documents which led to the justification of the conclusions in Report No 61474/1 August 2011. Updated position expressed byM^jby lette© Ares(2012)212310: Recommendation partially accepted: According to the COCOF note no. 07/0037/03 Guideline to determine financial corrections, a financial correction of 25% shall be applied due to applying too restrictive criteria. Unjustified accelerated Action a) procedure based on ANRMAP Order 1) When verifying the contract noticje. 51/2009 ANRMAP should Applicable legislation assess the In accordance with the compliance with the provisions provisions of the Article legal reduced 38 paragraph 3 of the when aire EU Directive no. deadlines by the 2004/18/EC on the foreseen coordination of contracting procedures for the Action andb) a) 60 days MA Action c) MA; ANRMAP High Initial position expressed by MS: Commission's services take note Recommendation not accepted on the reply provided by the A decision was issued with regard to the MS. application of the provisions of Government Emergency Order No 66/2011, and the Commission's Findings Note which was subject to the services close the objection was concluded, the objection was finding. admitted and the debt security was voided. Report No CA 61474/16 August 2011 According to the documents subject to checks. According to the COCOF Note no 07/0037/03 12 '№ FINDING A C T I O N TQ­BJE T Ä I Í E N / į  ^COMMENDATIONS  award  of  public  works  contracts,  public  supply  contracts  and  public  service  contracts  and  Article  83  of  Emergency  Ordinance  34/2006:  "In the  case  of  restricted  procedures,  negotiated  procedures  with  publication  of  a  contract  notice  referred  to  in  Article  30  and  the  competitive  dialogue:  authorities.  Action  b)  According  to  the  COCOF  Note  no  07/0037/03  Guideline  to  determine  financial  corrections,  a  financial  correction  of  10%  shall  be  applied  to  the  value  of the  contract  due  to  unjustified  use  of  reduced  deadlines  for  submitting  offers  by  potential  bidders.  (a)  the  minimum  time  limit  for  receipt  of  requests  to  participate  shall  be 37 days  from  the  date  on  which  the  contract  notice  is sent. "  Horizontal  action  As  concerns  reduce  See  action  deadlines,  paragraph  8  Table 2  states:  "In  the  case  of  restricted  procedures  and  negotiated  procedures  with  publication  of  a  plan.  ^SĘPNSIBįt;  B O D Y  V D E Ä U N E ;  PRÎORIÏY .tìmiUM/i Łow::": ACÇEFrANÇËBYTHEMļEMBEļEtSTATE/COMIVIENTS FROM  FlNAĽPOSrriON OF THE  : '.; TtffiMäilBEk ŠTATE ■": :: COMMlSSÍON  ":  which  are  kept  at  the  registered  office  of  MRDT  and which  were  sent by  the  beneficiary  to  be  included  with  the  financing  application,  the  applications  for  payment,  and  in the  period  of  the  checks,  the  control  unit  has  noted  the  following:  ­:îr ■■·■· >^аз, ^ , Teleorman Colinty  _tCouncįlb";, as.  a  Contracting  Authority,  requested "that  the  public  procurement  procedure  be  amended',  pointing  out that  it was  entitled to  speed  up  the  procurement  process  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Order  No  51/2009  of  the  National  Regulatory  Authority  Monitoring  Public  Procurement  (NRAMPP)  on  the  speeding  up  of  the  restricted  and  negotiated  procedures  with  the  prior  publication  of  an  invitation  to tender.  The  control  unit  established the  following:  Guideline  to  determine  financial  corrections,  a  financial  correction  of  10%  shall  be  applied  to  the  value  of  the  contract  due  to  unjustified  use  of  reduced  deadlines  for  submitting  offers  by  potential  bidders.  3  the  contract  notice  was  published  in  23  March 2010;  the  invitation  to  tender  was  'sent  for  publication  on  15 April  2010;  the  deadline  for  the  submission  of  applications  was 3 May  2010;  When several deficiencies  are found  in the same system, the flat  rates  of correction дге not cumulated, the most  serious  deficiency  being taken as  an  indication of the risks presented by the control system as a whole. (Guidelines on the principles, criteria and indicative scales to be applied  by  Commission  departments  in determining  financial  corrections  under Article 39(3) of Regulation  (EC) No  1260/1999.  13  ШюЖ&!: :::№? contract notice referred to in Article 30, where urgency renders impracticable the time limits laid down in this Article, contracting authorities may fix: (a) a time limit for the receipt of requests to participate which may not be less than 15 days from the date on which the contract notice was sent, or less than 10 days if the notice was sent by electronic means, in accordance with the format and procedure for sending notices indicated in point 3 of Annex VIII," Facts As regards the above mentioned contract: • Prior information notice was published on 23.03.2010. β Contract notice was sent for pubUcation on 15.04.2010. and • Deadline for submission of offers iKEsiöNspii; ВоШ PmoŞti;  :COMrøssro№ the contract was signed on 30 July 2010. Therefore, the period for the submission of tenders by candidates was 17 days (from 16 April 2010 to 3 May 2010, exclusive). Pursuant to the recommendation of the Ешореап Commission included in the Preliminary Audit Report No 2011/RO/EŒGIO/J2/956/1 for the Regional Operational Programme CCI 2007RO161PO001, it was deemed that the time limit for the submission of tenders was unjustifiably below the minimum time limit provided for by Article 38 of Directive 2004/18/EC and by the application of the accelerated procedure, competition was not sufficiently ensured. Following the analysis of the tenders submitted by the other candidates as well, it was found that a large number of documents were missing, as follows: the joint venture __— __- ^ Zamésti failed to submit many of the documents requested, part of such documents not being related to the technical equipment requested, such as missing educational certificates, degrees, non­legalised documents etc. to the absence of many documents in 14 'Ж .EÍNDÍNG':! ľ АШкщ TO BE'TAICEN/:; i McOmiENiUTlOÑS : í ; SESPONŚIBLE  IBÖDY  pËADLDŒ  (DAYS)  was  3.05.2010.  Contract  signed  on  30.07.2010.  Therefore,  the  time  limit  for  bidders  to  submit  offers  was 18 days.  First, having in mind:  a)  the  reduction  of  the  deadline  is  foreseen  only  when  normal  time­limits  are  impracticable.  (Article  38  paragraph  8  of  the  EU  Directive  no.  2004/18/EC),  and  b)  "when  fixing  the  time  limits  for  the  receipt  of  tenders  and  requests  to  participate,  contracting  authorities  shall  take  account  in  particular  of  the  complexity  of  the  contract  and  the  time  required  for  drawing  up  tenders,  without  prejudice  to  the  minimum  time  limits  set  by  this  Article."  (Article  38  paragraph  1  of  the  EU  Directive  no.  2004/18/EC),  it  is  our  opinion  that  the  deadline  for  the  PRIORITY  ^ C E P T A N Ċ E J B Y д щ M E M B E R S T A T E / сом&шнтй F R O M : ! :; Γ .THE MEMBER STATE \ -, ^ lFlNĄL POSITION OF THE  töMMISiSIÖN  :: : ::'ί­0\ν::­;  connection  with  the  technical  equipment  requested,  educational  certificates  and  degrees  were  missing,  as  well  as  non­ legalised  documents,  references,  recommendations  for  the  staff  involved,  the financial ­  economic situation etc.  except  for  the  documents  related  to  the  technical  equipment,  documents  were  found  to  be  missing  as  regards  the  economic  and  financial  situation,  as  well  as  the  tax  certificate  which  was  not  valid  on the  date  of the meeting  for  the  opening  offenders,  the bank reference  letter for  the  financial  support for the work,  educational  degrees, attestations  etc.  Considering  the  above,  as  well  as  the  fact  that  the  beneficiary  was  entitled  to  speed  up  the  procurement  procedure  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Order  No  51/2009  of  NRAMPP,  the  exceptional  nature  of  the  situation  which  entailed  the  shortening  of  the  period  concerning  the  time  limit  for  the  submission  of  applications,  which  must  be  at  least  37 days,  is not deemed  justified.  According to the  rale  of  COCOF  07/0037/03­ RO,  the  final  version  on  29  November  2007  of  EC,  Guidelines  for  determining  financial  corrections  to  be  made  to  expenditure  co­ financed  from  the  Structural  Funds  or  the  Cohesion  Fund  for  non­compliance  with  the  rules  on  public  procurement,  in  conjunction  with  the  provisions  in  the  criterion  1.6 in  the  Annex  to  Government  Emergency  Order  No  15  ш. Шштам OBMiioŔíTY  iOrøElfi; тЖст  submission  of  offers  is  unjustifiably  below  the  minimum  period  foreseen by Article 38 of  Directive  2004/18/EC  and  by  applying  the  accelerated  procedure  market  competition  was  not sufficiently  ensured.  Secondly,  ANRMAP  and  MA  in  its  supervisory  role) did not  identify  this  specific  situation  during  their  verification  Also,  according  to  the  activity  report  of  UCVAP,  it  has  been  verified  and  concluded  that  the  Contracting  Authority  had  respected  the  relevant  legal  deadlines.  MA  did  not  spot  the  issue  in  its  supervisory role.  Based on the audit work,  we  have  identified  that  unjustified  shortened  deadlines  constitute  a  recurrent  irregularity  in  Romania  for  which  the  Commission  has  not  received  evidence  that  adequate  measures  are  66/2011,  a financial correction  of 10% shall  be  applied  to  the  value  of  the  works  contract.  Teleorman  County  Council,  acting  as  the  beneficiary,  lodged  an  objection  registered  with  the  Ministry  of  Regional  Development  and  Tourism  under  No  66682/7  September  2011 with regard to the Findings Note No CA­ 61479/16  August  2011  concerning  irregularities  and  the  appUcation  of  financial  corrections  in  connection  with  the  project  of  the  SMIS  Code  No  1124  "Rehabilitation of  DJ  506,  Cervenia­Vitanesti­Babaita,  km  17+400  58+000".  By  this  objection,  the  former  requested  the  cancellation  of  the  financial correction  of  10%  applied  to  the  value of the works contract.  By its Order No 2422/15 September  2011, the  Mmister  of  Regional  Development  and  Tourism  appointed  the  Committee  for  the  settlement  of  the  objection  lodged  by  Teleorman County Council.  РоШщищ  its  analysis,  the  Gommittee  has  found that:  ­  Directive  ' 2004/18/EC  on  public  procurement  allows  the  application  of  accelerated  procedures  when  they  are  justified  by  urgent  needs.  Even  if  the  speeding  up  of  the  public  procurement  procedure  can  support  in  a  justified  manner  the  actions  of Member States  in  16  \'Ш  Шшшс  'ί^τιοΝ,τρ BE;TAKEŅA::  : :tocqMME№ATïÖNS iį '.į  ItesprųiSiBLE  PRIOKTIY  CBOĎY  1^СЕгкШжЩ THE MEMBER STATE /CÖÄENTS EROM ■ : T H E M E M B E R STATE : : ■ ■; FIN AL POSITION OF THE GOMMISSION 'ит:Ж being implemented. their consolidation of their internal economy by the swift execution of major public investment projects, it is achieved if the conditions for the application of a competitive procedure have been ensured. As a Contracting Authority, the beneficiary requested the modification of the public procurement procedure, pointing out that it was entitled to speed up the procurement procedure in accordance with the provisions of Order No 51/2009 of NRAMPP on the speeding up of restricted and negotiated procedures with the prior publication of an invitation to tender, in conjunction with Article 83 of Government Emergency Order No 34/2006 on public procurement, as subsequently amended and supplemented. The Committee noted that the beneficiary justified the exceptional nature of that particular situation in accordance with the legal rales in force. Moreover, the reason for the speeding up of the restricted procedure was also invoked in the invitation to tender which was checked and approved by NRAMPP and in which the following was noted: Accelerated restricted procedure — Exceptional nature of the current economic situation and the provisions of Order No 51/2009 of the President of NRAMPP, as well as of the deadlines for the implementation of projects. 17 шш Шшрчс: RÈœHlSDATiONS ■GŐSÍniössroNi:­ BOB® Έΰψί  Considering  the  provisions  of  Article  83  of  Government Emergency  Order No 34/2006, in  conjunction  with the provisions of Article  1 of  Order  No  51/2009  of  NRAMPP,  the  Committee has found the following:  the  contract  notice  was  published  on  23  March 2010;  the  invitation  to  tender  was  sent  for  publication in OJEU on 15 April 2010;  the  time  limit  for  the  submission  of  applications was 3 May 2010.  By  way  of  consequence,  the  provisions  of  Article 83(2) of Government Emergency Order  No  34/2006  and  of  Article  1  of  Order  No  51/2009  of  NRAMPP  were  complied  with,  namely  Teleorman  County  Council  invoked  the exceptional nature  of the current  economic  situation  as  a reason  for  the  urgent  switching  from the  open  procedure,  which  was  initially  foreseen  in  the  timetable  of  public  procurement,  to  the  accelerated  restricted  procedure.  Thus,  it  ensured  compliance  with  the  minimum  period  of  15  days  foreseen  between  the  date  of  transmission  of  the  invitation  to tender  and  the  time  limit  for  the  submission  of  applications,  being  consistent  with the conditions set out.  The complainant submitted a table (included as  an  annex),  concerning  the  submission  of  the  qualification  documents  requested  in  the  Tender  data  sheet,  whereby  it proved that the  documents  could  have  been  obtained  within  18  ж  ľFÍNDÍNG  ŘECOňDVIEiTOATIONS  REŠPONSIÍBLE  BODY  Ршокпгс  J ^ G Ë P T ^ C È M T H E Ä M B E R S T A T E / C O M M E N I S F R O M : Ï ­У ­THE ШкШЕк!8ТАТЕЙ:; Î Ï N À L J P O S I T I Ö I N O F COMMISSION ;':ľ Ľow  the period­of time the applicants had available. In connection with this subject matter of the objection, according to the documents included with the case file, the Committee has found the following: the rejected candidates had a large number of documents missing, although they could have been obtained in due time by the tenderers, so that the assertion of the complainant is consistent with reality; the invitation to tender was published in SEAP, the invitation to tender was published in OffiU; The tender documents were analysed in terms of the inclusion of elements which may have entailed the introduction of unjustified obstacles likely to restrict competition; under the procurement procedure by an accelerated restricted call for the award of a works · contract with the object: "Rehabilitation of DJ 506, Crevenia­ Vitanesti­Babaita, km 17+400­58+000", only one objection lodged by M ^ ^ (ШШШЕШ was admitted by the National Council for the Settlement of Objections (NCSO). The objection was registered at NCSO under No 17970/27 May 2010 and it was settled by Decision No 3465/C8/3225/7 July 2010, being rejected as unsubstantiated. Coūsidering that the legal requirements 19 T H E ΐ;№­: ШМРЙЮ: ШсОшйшМтюМ LKSPÖNSIKLÍE BÖDYÍ were complied with, according to which the accelerated restricted procedure was carried out to such an extent that the economic operators concerned had available an adequate and sufficient period of time to prepare the tenders and the qualification criteria, the Committee deems that the period set by the Contracting Authority, i.e. the period between the date of transmission of the invitation to tender and the time limit for the submission of tenders is consistent with the relevant legal provisions, thus ensuring the purposes of Article 2(1) of Government Emergency Order No 34/2006, as amended and supplemented, with due regard to the provisions of Article 3 of Order No 51/2009 as well. Following the analysis carried out, the Committee issued Decision No 12/28 September 2011, whereby: it admits as a whole the objection registered at the Ministry of Regional Development and Tourism (MRDT) under No 66682/7 September 2011, which was lodged by Teleorman County Council as an opponent, having the single tax registration code 4652686, the registered office/address registered for tax purposes at 178 Dunării  Street,  Alexandria, PO  Box 140047, with  ЯН&  representative  and  Щ Ш Н ^ ^  as  an  authorised  agent,  with  regard  to  Findings  Note  No  CA­61479/16  August  20  'iN?  EÍNDING  ACTIONŢQJBE TAKEN/  RESPONSIBLE  РЕАОЬЮЕ : : ';BÖDY;: ; ': : : : :.  PiRIÖRITY: ; (DAYS) ; л HIGH/;;:; :: ; : A G C E P T Á N G E в γ T H E M E M B E R S T A T E / C O M M E N T S F R O M b. T H E M E M B Ë R S T A T E : V' FINÁL POSITION O F COMMISSION МЕОШМ/: Ľ O W :  2011 concerning irregularities and the application of financial corrections in connection with Grant Contract No 546/15 October 2009, SMIS code 1124 "Rehabilitation of DJ 506,  Ceľvenia­ Vitanesti­Babaita,  km  17+400 58+000  and  decides to void the debt security.  All  the  substantiating  documents  underlying  the  decisions  are  included  as  annexes.  Updated position  expressed by MS by letter  Ares(2012)212310:  Recommendation  accepted:  According  to  the  COCOF  Note  no  07/0037/03  Guideline  to  determine  financial  corrections,  a  financial  correction  of  10%  shall  be  applied  to the  value of the  contract  due to unjustified  use  of  reduced  deadlines  for submitting  offers  by potential  bidders.  Erheet; code 1099 ­ Rehabilitation  DJ 701, Umits ­ Dänibovitá^  #Щ¥890а Щ55,450::Щ)^ ■:ЩОг1шсЩ1гасг- ! ':;:Ргрсигетеп^рШсеШге::® 21 THE ¡ш : ;Щ ЕЩШВ1Е! FINDING i®GRÌffii WÊÊÊ 4. Discriminatory technical eligibility criteria ^,:, Applicable legislation Action a)  Taking  into  accoipt  the  financial  implications,  and  the  fact the Commission's  services  consider  the  procedure  as  a  "quasi­direct",  100%  financial correction is  proposed  to  be  applied  to  the  value  of the contract.  Article 23, paragraph 8 of the Directive 2004/18, transposed in Article 38 of ordinance 34/2006, states: "Unless justified by the subject matter of the contract, technical specifications shall not refer to a specific make or source. or a Horizontal action  particular process, or to trade marks, patents, See  action  plan.  types or a specific origin Table 2  or production with the effect of favouring or eliminating certain undertakings or certain products. Such reference shall be permitted on an excepţional basis, where  a sufficiently precise and  intelligible  description  of  the  subject­matter  of  the  contract pursuant  to  paragraphs  3  and  4  is  not  possible;  such  reference  shall  be  accompanied  by  the  words  'or equivalent''."  MA;  ANRMAP  60 days  ЙМ^ЕРШШШОЕМШ; iSil Uvil High  Initial  position  expressed  by  MS:  The  Commission's  services  take  note  Recommendation not accepted  of  the  information  provided  by  the  Checks  were  carried  out  in  accordance  with  MS.  Government  Emergency  Order  No  66/2011  according  to  Findings  Note  No  58818/3  Commission's  services  close  the  August 2011  finding.  According to the documents subject to checks,  which  are  kept  at  the  registered  office  of  In respect to the use  MRDT and which were sent by the  beneficiary  of  discriminatory  to  be  included  with  the  financing  application,  criteria,  a  25%  the applications for payment, and in the period  financial  correction  of the  checks, the findings of the  control  unit  shall  be  applied  to  were the following:  the  value  of  the  ť  As  regards  the  use  of  the  qualification  contract  (point  7 of  the  guidelines  on  and selection criteria  financial  ­The  invitation  to  tender  was  sent  for  the  corrections).  publication in SEAP and OJEU  ­The  Evaluation  Committee  considered  as  unacceptable  the  tenders  which  were  Due  to  suspicions  fraud,  submitted  with  a  large  number  of  of  documents  missing,  as  required  in  the  expenditure  under  this  contract  should  tender documents.  ­ The requirement  as regards  the use  of the  not  be  declared  the  "in  situ"  cold  recycler  under  the  project  until  finalisation  of  the  was met by three  of the four  companies  or  investigation.  If  joint ventures which submitted tenders.  fraud  is  proven  by  ­None  of  the  companies  which  took  the  tender  documents  objected  to the technical  investigations,  a  solution  of  the  "in  situ"  cold  recycling  or  financial  correction  of  100%  of  the  the related machines and equipments.  value  of  the  The  in  situ  recycling  procedure  is  established  contract  shall  be  and  explained  in details both  in the  feasibility  22  ­JlOį  i^FÍNDING:;  RECOMMENDATIONS  Í ; 1ÖSPÖNSBBLE;: :  V::J;,::­:BÖDYÍ:::;;';.­­V  i^CEPTAříCE m  TJŞEMEMBER STATE/CÖM&ffiNTS ĪROM. FINAL POSITION OF THE COMMISSION X::::(DÄYS)I­:·  Low;:;:  Facts: The contracting authority established a detailed list of equipment to be in the possession or at the disposal of the candidates without permitting the use of equivalent equipment for the selection stage of the restricted public procedure used in this case. Therefore, the contracting authority's set up of detailed technical selection criteria lead to unjustified obstacles to the opening up of public procurement to competition. By limiting the competition, the principle of sound financial management, as stated in Article 14 (1) of Regulation 1083/2006, is not complied with. Secondly, and MA ANRMAP in its study, in the brief design and in the financing applied. application approved. This procedure which was chosen by the designer was approved by Government Decision No 766/1997 approving certain regulations on the quality in constructions, as published in Official Gazette, part I. No 352/10 December 1997, "Please note that the in situ recycling procedure is used exclusively for road works and, considering that the subject matter of the grant contract is the rehabilitation of a road, the Contracting Authority used this procedure in full compliance with Article 23(8) of Directive 2004/18/EC and in accordance with the solution imposed by the technical documentation approved, included as an annex to the grant contract. We would like to specify that the documentation submitted for the approval of the intervention works (i.e. the feasibility study), which was NOT prepared by the staff of the County Council but by a specialised company designated for this purpose through an open call procedure, provides that: (...) The brief design (...) provides the following: 4 cm of asphalt concrete wearing layer В A 16 6 cm of connecting BAD 25 course binder layer 23 ЕЖ.  ШтшШ  PRIORITY  asti!:  supervisory  role  did  not  identify  this  specific  situation  during  their  verification  20  cm  of  natural  aggregate  layer  stabilized with cement in situ  (...)  Under heading  17 in the breakdown  of works,  it is  specified:  "20  cm cold recycling  of roads  by  using  the  recycler  and  stabilizing  ballast  with cement (...)·  In  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Article  35(3)  of  Government  Emergency  Order  No  34/2006  and  the  Operational  Manual  for  the  award  of  contracts  under  the  public  procurement procedure, VOLUME II, page 20,  the  following  are  provided:  "In  the  case  of  works  contracts,  the  technical  specifications  may  also  refer  to  prescriptions  relating  to  design  and  calculation  of  costs,  ...of  the  procedures  and  execution methods,  as well  as  to  any  other  technical  requirements  that  the  Contracting Authority can describe..."  By  the  TECHNICAL  SOLUTION  (...),  the  whole  technological  process  is  carried  out  on  site  (ги situ),  on  the  location  of  the  road,  by  way of a set of equipments:  a water tank  a hot bitumen tank  a binder spreader  a plant for the mixture of components  a recycler  24  ж ^FINDING­:: SEŠPONSIBLE DEADLINE RECÖMÄffiNÖATTONS ι ÍBÄYS) PRIOÍRITÝ V/'VHIGH/;;:;;: ЖСЕРХА^СЕ:ВДТНЕ:МЕМВК8М ■í :: T H Ê M E M B É R ŠTÁTE J : ; : ¿". F I N A L POSITION O F THE ; ÏGOMMISSION; > .MgniUļvi/:;:  ■''"'■■Low':­­: compacting cylinders Among these, the recycler has the main function because it cuts the deteriorated road, kneads it and mixes it with the added binder and then it lays it back. The recycler is not a process in itself, it is a piece of equipment required to be included in the list of equipments according to the technical solution, which was to be appUed on the road sections where the designer deemed it necessary," Of the 22 tenderers which received the tender documents, only one tenderer lodged an objection whereby it considered that only the qualification and selection criteria relating to the location of the asphalt processing plant were discriminatory in nature. By its Letter dated 21 May 2009, which was registered at Teleorman County Council under No 5882/22 May 2009, the tenderer т which did not participate anymore in the tendering procedure afterwards, lodged an objection with regard to the tender documents and to the procurement data sheet, which was addressed to the National Council for the Settlement of Objections (NCSO). The, subject matter­of the objection was the minimum qualification requirement, according. to which economic operators had to own án asphalt processing plant in Teleorman county. 25 ш : ::№шшс­ iSSeÖJvffiEOTÄtiÖNS BÖÖY EíöioRrrv íulí'iCOJVMSŠroNí. In order to sustain its objection. Я И И И ^ Д Д Д Д Д ! ^ ghnwęd that  Section 4  of  Chapter  V  in  the  procurement  data  sheet  entitled  "Technical  and/or  professional  capacity",  required  from  economic  operators  "to  own  an  asphalt  processins  plant  located  in  Teleorman  county",  which  the  opponent  considered  restrictive, therefore  contrary to  the  provisions  of  Article  178(2)  of  Government  Emergency  Order Ťsfd 34/2еШгапа  of Article  8  of Government Decision No  925/2006.  ?1й!  Following  the  aforementioned  objection  lodged,  the  Contracting  Authority  took  corrective  action  pursuant  to  Article  277(1)  of  Government  Emergency  Order No  34/2006,  as  amended  and  supplemented,  which  consisted  in  amending  the  provisions  in  Chapter  V.4)  Technical  and/or  professional  capacity  in  the  procurement  data sheet.  an  objection  with  regard  to the  outcome  of  the  procedure, which was addressed to NCSO.  The  opponent  invoked  its  right  to  bring  supplementary  supporting  documents  in  order  to  substantiate  compliance  with  the  qualification  requirements  referred  to  in  Article  11(4)  and  (5)  of  Government  Decision  No  925/2006  approving  the  detailed  rules  implementing  the  provisions  relating  to  the  award  of  public  contracts  in  Government  Emergency  Order No  34/2006  on the  award  of  public  contracts,  of  public  works  concession  26  :: : N°  ; FlŅbE4G ; ; ;  Ä t r r i Ö N TÖ BÎÈ TAkEN/;  tøCOMblENDAtiONS  I t e S P r ø S I B L E ;  BODY  ; ϊ>ΐΜΙΑΕ: :  Í M O R Í Ť Y  ;:AcclEPT^cÉÍBÝTHÉivifeMBËRSTATE/COMNIENĪS FROM : Ш;1 г о й MEMBER STATĖ;; :­ï : r^ F I N A L P O S I T I O N ОБ· T H E ^COMMISSION rMÈDJUMJ: Viem', contracts and public services concession contracts. The opponent equally ­ considered that the requirement concerning the location of the; asphalt processing plant within Teleorman county or the neighboring counties is discriminatory and inapplicable because the plant in possession "is mobile and can be located on any site ". By its Decision No 4157/C5/2476/4891/21 August 2009, the National Council for the Settlement of Objections (NCSO) admittedjie objection lodged by ЩЕШШЕШЕЕЕЕШЕЕк ^ШвШШШтЕЩйШУ Cluj­Napoca and issued a decision for the cancellation of the procedere .,.,.... ,,­­..*r Teleorman County Council lodged a complaint with regard to Decision No 4157/C5/2476/4891/21 August 2009 of NCSO at the Court of Appeal in Bucharest. By its Civil Sentence No 1973/13 October 2009, the Court of Appeal in Bucharest admitted the complaint of the complainant, namely Teleorman County Council, and rejected the objection lodged by в Ш Н Ш ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ as unsubstantiated, the decision of the court being final and irrevocable. Therefore, the control unit deems that there are no sufficient grounds to substantiate a 27 mm ЕБШнЩ ВоЩ Щюкгш Iow breach from the part of the beBeficiary in the provisions of Article 178(2) of Government Emergency Order No 34/2006 and Article 8 of Government Decision No i:r 925/2006. '"­■"■"■■■* • With regard to the conflict of interests ­ The control unit carried out checks, including at the National Trade Registry Office (NTRO), which sent the summary of the companies involved (from all viewpoints, namely the associates, the stock capital, shareholding, secondare offices  etc)  for  andEfå which does not reveal any direct connection with any of!,Ľ,,the  s  persons  involved  in  the  implementation""  of  the p r o j e c t  ^йощ  Teleorman County Council.  Moreover,  according  to  the  statements  of  the  beneficiary,  none  of  the  managing  staff  of  the  Contracting  Authority  or  member of their families  or relatives up to  the  fourth  grade  are  shareholders  or  employees  in  any  of  these  companies.  Moreover,  none  of  the  members  in  the  tenders'  evaluation  committee  is  No public contracts were concluded to the  benefit of companies managed by spouses,  relatives up to the  fourth  grade inclusive,  akin  or business  partners  with the  county  public  authority  which  organised  tendering  procedures,  negotiation  28  N°  "FINDING?'  ; ; A C T I Ö N : T O  B E  J A K E N / ; ;  :;::REGÖ™ENDAnÖNS:;ï  c­·  RESPONSIBLE  BODY  DEADLINE  Ï(DAYS):,  PáiöiuTY  ACCEÏPTANeE ΒΥΤΗΕ MEMBER STATE/ COMMENTS FROM ν^:':;·:;Γ:;ίν;ν.^ν­ν­;ί:ΤΗΕ'ΜΕΙ№ΕΚ8ΐννΐΈ:0  FINAL POSITION OE THE  COMMISSION­ : :Ľow: ľ  procedures  or  calls  for  tenders.  At  the  same  time,  none  of the  persons  specified  above is in a conflict  of financial  interest  because they have not obtained any real or  potential  profit  with  the help  of a public  clerk  withm  the  specialised  apparatus,  a  government  official  or  a  person,  who  owns properties,  shares or holds a certain  function  in  the  two  companies  which  participated  in  public  procurement  procedures.  ­  Considering the provisions  of Section  8  ­ Rules to prevent the conflict of interests m  Government  Emergency  Order  No  34/2006, the control unit has not identified  any  elements to ascertain the existence of  a  conflict  of  interests  under  the  procurement process for a works contract.  ­  According  to  Request  No  48312/23  June  2011  of  the  National  Integrity  Agency  (included  as an annex), the Audit  Report  of the Committee was transmitted because  this  institution  has  the  competence  to  carry  out  checks  with  regard  to  the  conflict  of interests. The response to  the  request was given by Letter No 51574/5  July 2011.  In conclusion, the control unit did not find any  irregularities,  as  defined  in  Government  Order  No  79/2003  on  the  control  and  recovery  of  Community  funds,  and of the  related  co­financing  funds  unduly  used, as  approved as amended by Law No 529/2003,  as  subsequently  amended  and  29  ш ШШшШШ ЕшЕсшмшШШШт ffiilOÎUTÏii iillffiiraSIl ¡¡¡lilii tmWmĚÍL supplemented. Updated position expressed by MS by letter Ares(2012)212310: Recommendation partially accepted According to the Note COCOF Note no. 07/0037/03 Guideline for determine financial corrections, a financial correction of 25% shall be applied to the value of the contract due to applying too restrictive criteria for selection. ; Works: contract-¿4 ШаШШШШШШШШШШШШЕШШШШ ШШШШ^ШШШшШШШШШШШШ : ■ Procedure:: Accelerated: ŕeštŕictedíendeŕ· :  5.  MA  Unjustified  accelerated  Action  a)  procedure  based  on  ANRMAP  Order  When  verifying  the  MA;  contract  notice,  51/2009  ANRMAP  should  ANRMAP;  Applicable  legislation  assess  the  In  accordance  with  the  compliance  with  t i e  provisions  provisions  of  the  Article  legal  reduced  38  paragraph  3  of  the  when  EU  Directive  no.  deadlines  are  applied  2004/18/EC  on  the  by  the  contracting  coordination  of  authorities.  procedures  for  the  award  of  public  works  Action  b)  contracts,  public  supply  60  days  High  Commission's  services  take  note  Recommendation  not  accepted  on  the  reply  Checks  were  carried  out  in  accordance  with  provided  by  the  Government  Emergency  Order  No  66/2011  MS.  and  Report  No  67349  of  12  September  2011  Commission's  was  prepared.  services  close  the  1.  According to that report, the inspection  team  finding.  found  that,  on  29  December  2011  [sic],  the  beneficiary  sent  to  SEAP  the  invitation  to  According  to  the  tender  published  under  No  92716  of  30  COCOF  Note  no  December  2009  for  the  "Execution  of  07/0037/03  to  modernisation  worh  on  county  roads  in  Ilfov  Guideline  determine  financial  Initial  position  expressed  by MS:  30  :Ж= <Щкита;. RESPONSIBLE ШЕАВШЧЕ:;: PRIORITY \JhBimï'M BÆCOMMErTOATIONS ;^ÇEET^ÇEBYÎmÄffiMBERŞfAŢE?CÖIyttlENTS  EĶOMi  ΐ ;":■ 'THE M E M B E Í C ЗТАЛГЕ í . FINAŁ POSITION OF THE county". Those works also include the project concerned, the type of procedure being the accelerated restricted tender procedure. Furthermore, on 31 December 2009, the invitation to tender for the first selection stage was published in OJEU under No 2009/S 252-362817, in accordance with Article 55(2)(c) of Government Emergency Order No 34/2006. The estimated value of the contract had been set, at the time of the publication, at EUR 41 300 584.06 without VAT. Those notices and the contract award documents specified, under Section IV.3.4, that "The deadline for the receipt of tenders or requests for participation is 14 January 2010 at 9.00", thus ensuring a period of 14 calendar days (in accordance with Article 3(z) of Government Emergency Order No 34/2006) between the date of transmission of invitations to tender for publication in OJEU and the deadline for the submission of applications. corrections, a financial correction of 25% shall be applied to the value of the contract due to unjustified use of reduced deadlines for submitting offers by potential bidders. :: COMMISSION ;:(DĀYŠ) :; ŁÓW contracts and public Taking into account service contracts and the financial value of Article 83 of Emergency this contract Ordinance 34/2006: covering works to be carried out for all 9 "In the case of restricted projects managed by procedures, negotiated this contracting procedures with authority and the publication of a contract timing (holidays notice referred to in period), together Article 30 and the with the fact that the competitive dialogue: competition was (a) the minimum time limited (3 out of 4 limit for receipt of bidders were requests to participate excluded) a 25% shall be 37 days from the financial correction date on -which the is proposed to be contract notice is sent. " applied. As concerns reduce deadlines, paragraph 8 states: "In the case of restricted procedures and negotiated procedures with publication of a contract notice referred to in Article 30, where urgency renders impracticable the time limits laid down in this Article, contracting authorities may fix: (a) a time limit for the receipt of requests to Horizontal actioD See action Table 2 plan, As regards the publication of a contract notice under Article 51(c), this was mandatory if the Contracting Authority intended to reduce certain deadlines in applying: ­ an open call tender procedure pursuant to Article 72(2) (not applicable); ­ or the second stage of the restricted tender procedure, namely the stage initiated by the transmission of the invitations to tender to all of the selected applicants, pursuant to Article 89(2) ('...up to 36 days, and in any case no sooner than 22 days'). In any event, paragraph 6 of the same Article provides that "Where, for 31 'ШШаШ ш? participate which may not be less than 15 days from the date on which the contract notice was sent, or less than 10 days if the notice was sent by electronic means, in accordance with the format and procedure for sending notices indicated in point 3 of Annex VIII," For this contract: » Contract notice was sent for publication on 30.12.2009. and • Deadline for submission of offers was 14.01.2010. Therefore, the time limit for bidders to submit offers was 15 days. Firstly, having in view: a) the reduction of the deadline is foreseen only when normal time­limits are impracticable, but b) when launching the tender procedure not all Financing Contracts were approved (for the 9 contracts included in the ВоИ 1)ЕА1оШ ЕЮЮЮТ¥ l Ä Ä P p s r a i Q N P F THÈ reasons of urgency, the number of days referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 cannot be complied with... the Contracting Authority shall be entitled to speed up the application of the procedure by reducing the respective period, but to not less than 10 days ". Therefore, in this case, the need for the prior publication of a contract notice in SEAP and OJEU was not mandatory, because the period set initially by the Contracting Authority in the second stage of the restricted tender procedure was 13 days, with a subsequent three­day extension pursuant to Article 72 of the Order concerned. Thus, the invitation to tender was issued under No 1034 of 10 February 2010 and the deadline for submitting a tender was set for 24 February 2010 According to letter No 241 of 23 February 2010, that deadline was extended to 1 March 2010. On the other hand, when analyzing the correctness of setting a period of 14 calendar days between the date of transmission of invitations to tender for publication in OJEU and the deadline for submitting applications (between 30 December 2009 and 14 February 2010), the following legislative provisions apply: ­ Articles 71 and 83(1), (2) and (3) of Government Emergency Order No 34/2006 on the award of public procurement contracts, public works concession contracts and public services concession contracts, as amended: 32 m '■FINDING·: ACTION TÖ B E TAKEN/ RESPONSIBLE DEAÍJÍJNE í ÄCOMMENDATIÖNS PKKMUTY ÀCCEÌPTANCÈBYTHE MEMBER S T Ä É / C Ö M I Ä N T ^ FROM: "v.:; T H E M E Ì I B E R STATE­ ­;. ­ FlNÁLf ÓSrriÖN OF THE COMMISSION .(DAYS) tender) and the works cannot actually start on the field until the signature of the Financing Contracts, and c) the contractual agreement was only signed on 21.04.2011, It is our opinion that the use of accelerated restricted procedure was not justified. Secondly, "when fixing the time limits for the receipt of tenders and requests to participate, contracting authorities shall take account m particular of the complexity of the contract and the time required for drawing up tenders. without prejudice to the minimum time limits set by this Article." (Article 38 paragraph 1 of the EU Directive no. 2004/18/EC). By applying the accelerated restricted procedure for this complex tender, with ­ Article 27(3) of Government Decision No 925/2006 on the detailed rales for implementing Government Emergency Order No 34/2006, as amended. Those provisions are reproduced below: Article 17 — Without prejudice to the applicability of the provisions of this Emergency Order concerning the minimum periods which must be ensured, on the one hand, between the date of transmission of contract notices for publication or the date of transmission of invitations to tender and, on the other hand, the deadline for the submission of tenders/applications, the Contracting Authority shall set that period according to the complexity of the contract and/or the specific requirements, so that the interested economic operators have adequate and sufficient time to prepare the tenders and the qualification documents requested in the contract award documents. " Article 83 ­ (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 71, where the estimated value of the public procurement contract is equal to or greater than the value referred to in Article 55(2), the period between the date of transmission of the contract notice for publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and the deadline for the submission of applications must be at least 37 days. (2) Where, for reasons of urgency, the number of days referred to in paragraph (1) cannot be complied with, the Contracting Authority shall 33 4mi :ÏFiNDING& extensive selection criteria, only 1 offer had been able to meet all the criteria in order to be selected for the 2nd phase of the tender procedure. This could have had a financial impact on the contracted amount, having in mind the lack of competition. Practically, it resulted in contracting the works for an amount very close to the maximum estimated amount. By limiting the competition, the basic public procurement principles of equal treatment and non­ discrimination and the one of sound financial management, are not complied with. Thirdly, for this contract, ANRMAP specifically gave its agreement for the use of the restricted procedure, through the Note no. 4942/01.04.2011. Also, according to the ШсШшатШот DEADIJNE; ШШ): FlN^pÓSITION OF THE ... ^MMSSION; ЖшОют^ ;Н1бЩ=: be entitled to speed up the procedure by reducing the period referred to in paragraph (1), but to not less than IS days. (3) Where the contract notice is sent, in electronic format, for publication in Official Journal of the European Union, the period referred to in paragraph (1) may be reduced by 7 days and the period referred to in paragraph (2) may be reduced by 5 days. Under these conditions, the minimum deadline provided for by the Order in the first stage of the accelerated restricted tender procedure is 15 ­ 5 = 10 calendar days, which is applicable subject to compliance with the provisions of Article 27(3) of Government Decision No 925/2006, as updated, and with the provisions of Article 71. We would like to point out that the Territorial Administrative Unit (TAU) in Ilfov County sent the contract notice for the submission of applications under the first selection stage by SEAP on 30 December 2009 for publication in OJEU in computerized form in accordance with the provisions of Article 48(2) of Government Emergency Order No 34/2006, as updated. This notice was pubüshed under No 2009/S 252­362817 in compliance with Article 83(3) of Government Emergency Order No 34/2006. It has been found that the Contracting Authority complied with this minimum period and, by adding other 4 calendar days as an extension, the provisions of Article 71 can be 34 :;:;;Jjov ^!&У^"Ш1Ш^1^Ш^:-:'Г :' :: AGTirøTÖBETAIŐEN/::ΐ.  BEŠPÓNŠIBLE :Í:DEADĹIŇE:;"  EraöRrrYl  : : ^ G Í E Í P l ^ C E № Í m M E M B № S Í U T E / C Ö M N ^ ^ FROM ­ FINAL PdsrrïöN OF THE COMMISSION ; :ΐ /ACOMMENtìAtìONS ;; ­У;í;^Щ:ЩпЩ^р ■'^ШШ^аш1^^^^^^"^^-}^}^^^^ ':liįG)ĄM­;^}  activity report of UCVAP, it has been verified and concluded that the Contracting Authority had respected the relevant legal deadlines. MA did not spot the issue in its supervisory role. Based on the audit work. we have identified that unjustified shortened deadlines constitute a recurrent irregularity in Romania for which the Commission has not received evidence that adequate measures are being implemented. deemed to have been observed as regards the extension of the period of submission of applications according to the specific requirements imposed, with the following arguments being brought with regard to this latter issue: o the Procurement data sheet (document No 7) includes the requirements and the minimum levels requested from the potential candidates, among which: in Chapter V.l ­ Personal status of the applicant/tenderer — 3 documents; in Chapter V.2 ­ Professional capacity - 4 certificates issued by State authorities, 1 tax record certificate issued within not more than 15 days before the opening of applications, 2 criminal records; in Chapter V.3) Economic and financial status - 4 documents relating to annual balance sheets and turnover for each member in the joint venture; 1 document regarding access to credit lines, issued by the creditor bank(s) within not more than three days before the date of opening of applications, to be submitted only in original; in Chapter V.4. Technical and/or professional capacity - 1 list with the main works carried out, 3 specific declarations as regards the in­house technical staff, subcontractors, machines and equipments available as well as a sheet for similar experience and a statement for the acknowledgment of the contractual terms. Requirements also involved the submission 35 ш  ЙВДйЙЮ;  ШеоюшШШкШ  'ВоЩ  iDipjliįjteiĘ:  ^GEÍr^qi:B¥ fl E;№#№ST^ feöSiSÍKBibS' IOW:  of documents as regards the possession/acquisition of asphalt mixing plants, concrete plants, quarries for mining, laboratories and several related documents pertaining to each unit. Operators also had to submit the legalized copy of the ISO 9001:2001 certificate on the implementation of the quaUty management system, of the ISO 14001:2001 certificate on the implementation of the environment standard, of the OHSAS 18001:2007 certificate on the occupational management and safety and of the SA 8000:2008 certificate on social accountability; The requested documents are found at the registered office of any economic operator, even more so as they refer to the financial year completed more than a year before, and others, such as tax certificates, ascertaining certificates, bank documents, tax records or lease/supply contracts, may be obtained within a reasonable period of 3 to 7 days following the submission of an appUcation; Certain aspects in connection with the above are confirmed by the current practice; In this stage of submission of applications, potential participants did not have to prepare any technical documents (i.e. the technical proposal, the preparation of estimates etc). In order to obtain additional clarifications in 36 ::Щ  FUNDING  ; : ACTļOŅ TQBE TAKEN/..  íteSPÓÑSIBLE. BööY ! IteCOMMENDÄTIÖNS  PRÍORIÍÝ (DAYS);;: 1 ; ":";1НЮН/:':Г; Мтгом/ ' Acc:EpÄJNGE:BÝ iMÄiylBÄŠTATE Icobmmm FROM FÍNAL PÒSrrroiS OF THE COMMISSION this respect, MRDT requested from NRAMPP by Letter No 63100/23 August 2011 an opinion with regard to the correct justification of the 14 calendar day­period by the Contracting Authority, of the compliance ensured by this entity with the principles in Article 2(2) of Government Emergency Order No 34/2006, as updated, as well as with regard to the correct establishment of minimum requirements as regards the obligation to implement the SA 8000:2008 standard relating to social accountability. It was noted that, pursuant to Article 2 of Government Emergency Order No 74/2005 on the establishment of NRAMPP, as subsequently amended and supplemented: Article 2 "For the purposes of its functions, the Authority shall have the following main tasks: d) to ensure an appropriate fi-amework for the consistent application of the legislation in the area of public procurement, and pursuant to Article 3: Article 3 "Лу the duties it was entrusted with and by its structure, the Authority shall carry out the following tasks: e) methodological guidance to Contracting Authorities during the public procurement process, supporting the correct application of the relevant legislation". According to the response of NRAMPP, pursuant to Letter No 13741/26 August 2011, registered at MRDT under No 64571/30 August 2011 (document No 8), "...the grounds as regards the speeding up of the public 37 ш? ШтяШ- ^pQ!S;tQ:BË ИЖЕЩ: ШСОШШПАИОМ Bolov^ .ЗЩедШЕ: Ша&ьгсатт mmi. ШшшШ &ш procurement procedure for the award of a works contract in order to reduce and set the periods were correctly substantiated, and the Contracting Authority observed the principles referred to in Article 2(2) and the minimum periods referred to in Government Emergency Order No 34/2006". As regards the requested certifications, "...the contracting authorities shall be entitled to request from economic operators to submit the SA 8000:2008 certificate as part of the qualification documents only where this requirement is relevant for the performance of the contract which is to be awarded, and proportional with the nature and complexity ofthat contract". In conclusion, the control unit established that the beneficiary (ATU Mov), as a Contracting Authority, did not commit any breach in the specific provisions of the legislation in force as regards public procurement, and no financial corrections are required to be applied with reference to the provisions of Article 6(3) of Government Emergency Order No 66/2006 on the prevention, ascertaining and sanctioning of irregularities occurred in the procurement and use of European funds and/or of their related national public funds. Updated position expressed by MS by letter Ares(2012)212310: Recommendation accepted 38 "Ш:; 6. : ­Í::fâwÍNGJ­ v Unjustified/ Incorrect use of negotiated procedure without publishing a contract notice in the case of similar works :; ■"; ^ А Щ ш ЩШ TAKEN/ ■ Щ Action a) The managing authority should perform an analysis of the works performed imder the The Contracting addenda to the initial Authority had made use contract in order to of the provisions of identify which part of Article 122 of OUG the works qualify as 34/2006. "similar works" and part are According to the Article which mentioned above, in "additional works". case the Contracting Authority intends to apply the negotiated procedure without publication of a contract notice for contracting similar works, the estimated value of the initial contract should be determmed taking into account all similar works foreseen to be contracted at a later stage (Art 122. §i). Additional works shall not be eligible. Action b) Having in mind that the contracting authority compensated the additional works awarded to the contractor by renouncing to other works included in MA ­■;::1ААЬШЕ1:;:;: dRmóRiTÝ i 60 days High FINAL POSITION OF THE According to lhe COCOFNote m. 07/0037/03 Guideline to determine financial corrections, a financial correction of 25% shall be appUed to the value of the contract due to applying too restrictive criteria for selection. Commission's Accepted recommendation services take note Checks were carried out in accordance with of the information Government Emergency Order No 66/2011 provided by the Romanian and the Findings Note was prepared: authorities. The value of ® As regards the application of the negotiated 3,627,416.08 lei procedme without the publication of an related to the above invitation to tender, in the case of similar works, the control unit has found the mentioned SMIS project should be following: ­ In the Procurement data sheet it was stated corrected. that the Contracting Authority is entitled to opt for the subsequent acquisition of new Nevertheless, the works from the economic operator whose same analysis and tender will be declared successful under the correction should procedure pursuant to Article 122(i) and (j) be applied for the of Government Emergency Order No other projects fmanced from 34/2006. ERDF which fall ­ The works set out in Addendum No 1, 3, 5 under the same and 16 were referred to in the construction contract. site orders by the designer and were approved by addendums to the works contract by the beneficiary and the The Commission's services consider constructor. ­ The total value of Addendum No 1, 3, 5 and this finding closed 16 was 3,627,416.08 lei, which is below the under the present maximum rate referred to in the grant audit procedure. Follow-up of the 39 EN?! йВДийггей For this contract, ­ the estimated amount in the contract notice was 207 M lei, and ­ it was estimated an additional amount of similar works in amount of650Mlei. Practically, ­ until the moment of the report, similar works in amount of 203.102.141 have been contracted as similar works. Similar works are considered to be repetitive works of the ones included in the initial contract and which are in line with the tender documentation. il^^iONlTÖBElKÄP BJEJSEONŠpĽE  Bomr  the initial technical design, Romanian authorities should perform detailed technical checks on the deliveries to determine whether, the finalised project complies with the initially approved one and with the initially approved technical design based on which works contracts have been awarded. This action should be taken before closing the financed projects affected by this works contract. ' It is our opinion that Horizontal action amount foreseen for plan. similar works is See action Table 2 disproportionate as compared to the initially contracted amount (three times the value of the initial contract). Thus, the principle of sound financial management lJrøjilNE; ШИ!): PRIORITY ! ""1ШЙ:" ' МазшШ Ëöm 1А£едрТМСЕ;В¥ТЩ;Щ1#^ ]Ш?А:РШТ10^" №.ТНЕ ;:: ; &MMISSÏONÎ contract, i.e. 10% of the value of the works contract. With regard to the acquisition of the works listed in Addendum No 3 and 16, the beneficiary failed to meet the cumulative requirements imposed by Article 122(i) of Government Emergency Order No 34/2006 concerning the application of the negotiated procedure without the prior application of an invitation to tender, because it did not provide proof that these works became necessary for the performance of the contract due to certain unforeseeable circumstances. Moreover, the beneficiary may not invoke the opportunity for the acquisition of additional works if the data provided in the application form had been changed. With regard to the acquisition of the works listed in Addendum No 1 and 5, the beneficiary failed to meet the cumulative requirements imposed by Article 122(j) of Government Emergency Order No 34/2006 concerning the application of the negotiated procedure without the prior publication of an invitation to tender. The legal text referred to, i.e. Article 122(j), provides that the estimated value of the initial contract is set by taking into account as well the similar works which may be acquired subsequently. The beneficiary contradicted itself when it asserted that, upon the initial acquisition, it took into account works about which it subsequently stated that they became corrective measures will be done during future audit work. 40 m IFIMMNG;: : Аспт пер ВГТАКШ/:;;; RECQMMENDÀÏiONiS IteSPOrølBLE BODY DEADLINE PRIORITY iÄ^EPTTANGÉ BV;TÍÍE;affil\№Ell:STAE/GOK№ÑTSFRÓM:; :THEЙЕЙШЛ ŠTÁTE::: ;■ '■ FINAL POSITION OF THE COMMISSION .'■:­;?;lJÖW;,:':.; was not complied with. Secondly, under the umbrella of similar works, additional works were contracted as well at least in amount of 5.059.398 lei (Addenda number 3, 8, 9, 10 and 11). In addition, for the Addenda number 12, 13 and 14 the nature of the works is not indicated. The related amount is 9.300.349 lei. Also, for Addendum number 1, the contracted works cannot be considered as similar because these are a consequence of a modification of the initial technical solution, which implies renouncement to a number of works and execution of additional works (not initially foreseen). necessary due to certain events which were not considered when the initial project was prepared (weather conditions, heavy traffic). ­ Considering the findings above, as regards the conclusion of Addendum No 1, 3, 5 and 16, the control unit considered that the beneficiary failed to apply correctly the negotiated procedure without the prior publication of an invitation to tender, which is contrary to the cumulative requirements imposed by Article 122(i) and (j) of Government Emergency Order No 34/2006. Considering the fact that, until the date when the checks were carried out, no amount was settled to the account of the beneficiary under Works contract No 3335/11/21 April 2010 which was concluded with the joint venture the Managing Authority for the Regional Operational Programme will not refund any expenditure incurred by the Administrative-Territorial Unit of Ilfov county under Addenda No 1,3, 5 and 16 to this contract. From the data available, the Addendum number 4 could be as well partially affected, as it foresees 41 ш Шктш ШИШ:,,: ШеоШшшАЙше execution of additional works. Therefore, the additional works cannot be considered as eligible to be contracted as similar works and are irregular. Please see Annex 1 of the Report, for an overview of the Addenda signed for similar works. »■.-»ŕ;  ; Framework; agreement:  ■ ; Value; of cointräct^Percentage: ;of the works: contracts tö Ш ;šüperyised ; : : Procurement procedure:; ОрЩ Itëiïdër ; ; 7. Noncompliance with the contractual provisions Framework agreement for supervision services of 33 works contracts was concluded with 3 Action a) Contracting Authority shou provide justification on the percentages agreed during the subsequent CA; MA 60 days High Accepted recommendation Commission's services take note Checks were carried out in accordance with of the information Government Emergency Order No 66/2011 provided by the and the Findings Note was prepared: MS. • With regard to the conclusion of the Based on the subsequent services contract for Procedure report 42 ΗΝ?; ::;FíNÍMNG:: vAÇTO^:TO:BË.T^ŒN/;; ; r f e c Ö M Ä N Ö A t l Ö N S :'■ ¡­BÜESEQNSIBLE: ļDEADLIŅE  ÏRIORiTY JBÖDY ; i ^ c E P i p i c Ě : B Y r a E Ш М В Е К STATE /COMMENTS FROM ;;::>::;:ÍTHE M E M B E R  Ś f A T E  FlNÁLPOSiTIÖN  OF THE  GOMMISSroN  i;(RAYS) ■  ļ  ■ M E D I U M / ■■::­::]JOW';V; eligible  tenderers.  The  negotiations  for  award  criterion  was  the  specific  contracts  lowest  price.  In  this  with  the winners of  situation,  the  value  of  the  framework  the  framework  contract  contract  which  did  is  expressed  in  not  complied  with  percentages  applied  to  the  provisions  of the  the  value  of the  works  framework  contract.  contracts  to  be  Horizontal action  supervised.  ­  0.35%:  See  action  Table 2  0.516%;  ­  0.65%;  When  awarding  the  subsequent  supervision  contracts, the contracting  authority  re­negotiated  the conditions with the 3  qualified tenderers.  During  the  subsequent  negotiations,  one of the  tenderers  submitted  offers  higher  than  the  one   initially  tendered  (i.e.  Ш И Ш ,  ­  cca.  0.64%)  Having in view:  ­ Article 32, paragraph 2  of  Directive  2004/18  states:  "When  awarding  contracts  based  on  a  plan,  technical  consulting  as  regards  the  supervision  of  works,  the  control  unit  noted the following:  the  Beneficiary  concluded  йтащетеогк  services  agreements  with the  following  tenderers:  for awarding  subsequent  contract no.  7399/13.07.2009,  the Commission's  understanding  that only!  did not respect the  percentage initially  offered.  (undIjprice: 0.516 %);  (ШШЮтттШ (unit price: 0.65 %).  This practice was  The  Beneficiary  concluded  the  put in question in  subsequent  services  contract  No  14/4 finding  no. 7.  May  2010  w i t h ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^  СШтемтт^тШ  for  0.64% of the  Therefore, the  Commission  value of the supervised works.  The  Beneficiary  set in the framework  considers as  agreements  the maximum  rate  of  the  irregular the  subsequent  contracts  as  "the estimated  amount which  value  of the  subsequent  contract with  results from the  the highest rate which is foreseen  to be  difference in  awarded on the period of the contract".  percentage  offered  The analysis of the legal texts  specified  during the  by  the  Beneficiary  (Article  143  of  subsequent  Government  Emergency  Order  No  negotiations with  34/2006,  in  conjunction  with  Article  the above  65(f)  of  Government  Order  No  mentioned  925/2006) revealed that this "estimated  company.  value... " is used  for the determmation  of  the value  thresholds  according  to  Having in view  which  the award  procedure  is chosen,  that the value of  not  for  the  imposition  of  certain  the subsequent  minimum  qualification  requirements.  contracts is  Thus, the corroboration of the two legal  expressed in  43  ш  illlŃDING­ ÍBÖDY  framework  agreement,  the  parties  may  under  no  circumstances  make  substantial  amendments  to  the  terms laid down in that  framework  agreement,  in  particular  in  the  case  referred  to  in  paragraph  3."  ­  provisions  of  the  initially  concluded  framework  contract,  paragraph  4.2:  "The  subsequent contracts will  be  awarded  by  re­ launching  the  competition^ v; with  the  enterprises  signing Л е framework contract, which. wült. tender a percentage applied at the value of the specific contract for which the service will be provided; this percentage shaU not be over the maximum percentage tendered for the award of the framework contract." (i.e. 0.35%) The contracts concluded subsequently with the &^^^Èk do texts considered by the Beneficiary is not applicable. The Beneficiary and the providers of services introduced under Article 7.2 of the framework agreements a maximum tendering rate of 0.65%, thus altering the outcome of the tendering procedure whereby the tender ranked on the first position had a value of 0.35% in breach of the provisions of Article 200 of Government Emergency Order No 34/2006, Article 82(1) and (4) of Government Decision No 925/2006. Following the reiteration of the tendering procedure, the Contracting Authority did not obtain any improvement in the price, which led to the reiteration of the competition Mndesr Article 68(2)(b). In these circumstances, the Contracting Authority had the obligation to award the subsequent contract to the tenderer which was ranked: on the first^position under the procedure applied for the conclusion,«.., :of·; ­the framework agreement, by considering .­the conditions and elements set out in the latter's initial tender, i.e. ^ft > for the value of 0.35% of the value of works subject to supervision in accordance with the provisions of Article 69(6) of Government Decision No 925/2006. Considering that the Beneficiary, percentage to be applied to the value of the works supervised; the total value of the correction depends on the expenditure declared by the final beneficiary. Provided that the Romanian authorities corrects aü payments related to the contracts concluded with C.S.T SRL according to the above mentioned reasoning, the Commission's services consider this finding closed within the present contradictory; > , ■?? procedure. Follow-up of the corrective measures will be done during future audit work. 44 ?:Ņ°::;  ^■[Чз^Штя^^^^Х}   Τ Ο Ϊ Ε , Τ Α Κ Ε Ν / ; ; :  f: ; ; : K E Ş P C № Î Ş I B L E Î . :  ' 4 Р Е ^ Щ Е V! TiuoiarrY ;:ΐ Й С01ШШТОАТ1РН 5 :. j  ; : ■ ; Ï ­ T H E 1 M E M B É R S T À T E ; ■. ■ FiNÀJLPOSrilON OF THE : v  GÓMMIŚSION  ::::  namely the Administrative Territorial Unit of Ilfov county, concluded the subsequent services contract No 14/04 May 2010 in breach of the national legislation on public procurement, and taking into account the provisions of Article 9(25) of the grant contract, all the expenses incurred by the Beneficiary with technical consulting services as regards the supervision of works under Budget line 3.5 are ineligible. Considering that, until the date when the checks were carried out, no sum was settled to the beneficiary's account under the subsequent services contract No 14/4 May as the price to which the contract was awarded exceeded the percentage initially tendered. Therefore, based on the (originally agreed) percentage included in the framework contract is considered as irregular. Authority under the Regional Operational Programme will not reimburse any expense incurred by the Administrative Territorial Unit of Ilfov county under this contract. Comment on the financial selection criteria used by ATU Buzau and ATU Ilfov contracting authorities  8.  Commission  services  noticed  that  both  contracting  authorities  have  used  restrictive  financial  criteria  in  the  selection  stage  of  3  public  procurement  procedures  (i.e.  liquidity  ratio  over  100%  and  solvency  ratio  over  ANRMAP  should  be  ANRMAP  more  pro­active  when  suspecting  use  of  restrictive  selection  criteria  which might result in  a  limitation  of  competition.  Permane  nt  High  the  No reply has been mcluded in present document  Following  measures  implemented  under  the  action  plan  for  lining  the  interruption  of  payments  deadlines,  the  Commission  closes  this  finding  under  45  :М  Шюошс!  PiiuoRiľiyS  35%).  the  present  contradictory  procedure.  Several  months  later  (My  2010),  national  legislation  in  place  (national  ordinance  34/2006) changed stating  that,  liquidity  ratio  should not be over 100%  while  solvency  ratio  should  not  be  used  as  selection criteria.  Information  communication  and  We  take  notice  that  MA  the  modifications  were  mainly  formal  The applicants guide was  ones.  However,  a  modified  twice  by  good  practice  would  corrigenda  and  republished once without  be  to  interrupt  the  interrupting  the  session  call  for  projects  in  order  to  allow  the  for call for projects.  applicants  to  adjist  their  applications  appropriately.  Permane  nt  Low  Commission's  services take note  of the information  The Guidelines for Applicants relating to the m  provided by the  area  of  intervention  2.1  and those  relating  to o  MS.  major  areas  of  intervention  have  been  subjec  changes  following  certain  legislative  updates,  The Commission's  streamlining  of  certain  procedural  aspects  am  services  consider  areas,  the  introduction  of  recommendations  i  this  finding  auditors, in particular those related to the proces  closed.  the  technical  and  financial  evaluation,  and  tl  related  to  certain  aspects  in  the  technical  economic documentation etc. Such measures die  affect  the actual process involving the design ol  project.  Moreover,  when  new  procedures  Λ  initiated for the major  areas of intervention 4.3,  and  5.3,  the  National  Centres  for  Toi  Information  and  Promotion,  the  guidelines  Accepted recommendation  46  Ш' ;:EiNDiNG:: 'ACnpNlOÏE­TMŒN/;.; RECOMiVffiNDÀtïONS iEÜESEQNŠiBLE ЩВот DEADLINE; {DAYS) Ршошта :l;:vHiGH/:;::; ■ÀCCÈFEANÇE^THE:MDpiBmS : : : : : : T H E M E M B E R S T Á T E ­".V FlNÄLPOSirroN OF THE COMMISSION :\::::­:'Löw::';:":'' applicants were also subject to changes folkrv the preliminary public consultations. It is noteworthy that the Guidelines relating to the m area of intervention 2.1 were republished follov the beneficiaries' requests to have a consolid version of the document. However, ROP MA be able to apply this measure to the subsequent for applications and/or within the follov programming period. of In order to ensure MA equal treatment and non­discrimination A significant number of between applicants, technical clarifications managing authority were requested by the should clearly IB's during compliance identify types of stage verification or by clarifications that the external evaluators during the financial and could be requested. 10. Equal treatment final beneficiaries technical evaluation of projects. It can be argued that some of the clarifications requested improved the initially submitted projects. The decision on requesting or not clarifications is a subjective one and could lead to un­equal treatment between final beneficiaries. 60 days Medium Accepted recommendation Commission's services take note We would like to point out here that this issue of the information was also approached with the Audit Authority. provided by the ROP MA tried to establish a clear distinction MS. between the requests for clarifications and the requests aimed at supplementing/improving the The Commission's projects. From the viewpoint of ROP MA, the services consider request for clarifications must not however this finding closed. allow the applicant to bring new documents which should have been annexed to the financing application, which was checked in the stage of compliance and eligibility. Nevertheless, during the technical and financial evaluation, the feasibility study/the documentation for the endorsement of the intervention works can have certain non­ correlations or certain incomplete parts. Those aspects must be corrected. Otherwise, an extremely high rate of projects should be rejected due to these inconsistencies. Based on our experience as regards checks, most of the reasons for rejection are given by the absence of documents (subject to the compliance and eligibility stage), such as deeds of property, the 47 ¿де; ШШЬдаЕ ЩАМДМЕ ffieÖlÄErTOATitÖNS ШаовШ ÎBODÏ (ШШ endorsement from the Mimstry of Education and Research, the Technical/technical economic endorsement from the Ministry of Public Health, the Environmental Sheet required under the Urban Planning Certificate etc) or even the extremely low quality of the feasibility study, including the Cost Benefit Analysis which was contrary to the specific recommendations (during the technical and financial evaluation) etc. However, any dissatisfied Beneficiary has the possibility to send an objection to ROP MA. However, considering that most of the proj which are pending completion at this stagi extremely low, and that the submission of proj is suspended in most regions and areas, we inten settle this issue during the following programn period. 11. Technical evaluation of projects Technical evaluation of projects is performed mainly documentary. This approach may lead to approval of projects not well prepared. As a consequence, many of the problems occurring during the implementation of projects seem to be due to low quality of the feasibility study and Managing authority MA should take measures and strengthen its verifications in order to ensure compliance with the principle of sound financial management as it is stipulated in Article 14 (1) of Regulation 1083/2006. An early on­the­spot visit could mean a more robust check on the quality and maturity 60 days Medium Accepted recommendation Commission's services take note of the information provided by the MS. This measure has already been applied for the major area of intervention 1.1 as of June 2010 (the Growth and Urban Development Poles operations), the procedure provides that the Feasibihty Study and the Brief Design be The Commission's subject to an on­the­spot visit made by services consider independent assessors. Moreover, the meeting this finding closed. with the Beneficiary for clarifications is also envisaged. In addition, we point out that in connection with the quality of the Feasibility Study and of the Brief Design, it is dependent in most cases by the very poor expertise work or other studies. Another major improvement 48 щз  Ш^Шпшщ:\:1  'į: V ; : : A C 1 ^ : T Ö Í B E : T ^ N / ; : U Рюоют į A ^ i r ^ C ^  I^SPrøSIBLE':; ­; :; MeOMÎ^NDATIONS Щ ■йфАта)П ■■■: ':ШШш(:^ : of  the  procedure  was  that  independent  assessors  may  request  the  technical  expertise  work  in  order  to  see  whether  the  Feasibility  Study takes over the  solutions  proposed in the  expertise work/studies.  Moreover,  the  on­the­ spot  visit  bv  the  IB  is  performed  at  a very  late  stage  (just  before  the  signature  of  the  financing  contract);  in  addition,  the  main  purpose  of the visit  is to  check  the  existence  of  the  original  documentation  submitted  in  the  financing application.  Audit  team  notices  overlapping  verifications  (compliance  and  documentary  verifications  performed  by  2  employees  in  the  IB).  These  verifications  are  in  line  with  the  procedural  requirements  of  the  managing  authority,  but  they  are  not  focussed  on the  risk  areas  (i.e.  there  is  no  qualitative  approach  of  COMMISSION  Я Low :;:::; ^ technical  design,  as well  of the project. as  differences  with  the  reality on the field.  12.  Overlapping  compliance  verifications  FROM. ­į  FINAL POSITION OF THE  ]Ά THE MEMBER STATE"  ;::  In  addition,  almost  99%  of  the  technical  financial  evaluations  are  completed,  with  exception  of  the  major  area  of  intervention  Growth and Urban Development Poles.  Although the MA procedures have been improved by the managing authority since laimching the programme, they could be further streamlined in order to avoid unnecessary administrative verifications. Permane nt Low Commission's  services take note  We  agree  that  the  compliance  and  eligibility  of the information  stages  are  likely  to  have  some  cases  of  provided by the  overlapping as regards compliance.  MS.  Accepted recommendation  This  approach  was  made  in  order  to  ensure  a  The  Commission's  single  decision  for  the  two  sub­stages  of  services  consider  verification.  From our viewpoint  and based on  this finding closed.  our  experience,  the  connection  between  the  checks on compliance and eligibility is closely  related  ­  certain  headings  in  the  compliance  grid  were  erroneously  interpreted,  e.g.  in  the  case  of  projects  developed  in  partnership,  the  related  documents,  the  existence  of  CVs,  the  Cost  ­  Benefit  Analysis  included  in  the  Feasibility Study, not separately etc)  49  'Щ^Ш^1Ш^^Ш!ШШ1Ш  '^Ш^  the  evaluations  for  visits  on­the­spot).  However,  considering that most of the projects  have  been  completed  at  this  stage  or  their  number  is  significantly  low,  we  intend  to  approach  this  issue  during  the  following  programming period.  50  TABLE 2 FOLLOW UP OF THE ACTION PLAN BY THE ROMANIAN AUTHORITIES Ш?: Audit finding Summary öffinding ii ^Actions ;;ае8с:ЩЙОп;;&:1:;:^::о Tteśppnśible body /Documents provided  pdiyçràbles to be prrø Effective  functioning  of  the  management  and  control  system  with  regard  to  public  procurement  verifications  Following  the  verifications  carried  out,  irregularities  have  been  identified  in respect to the award of 3  out  of  4  works  contracts.  These  contracts  were  concluded  for  works  related  to  12  road  projects,  and  represent  around  84%  of  the  eligible expenditure  of the  projects  included in the sample. In  addition,  findings have been raised in relations  to 2 service contracts.  Actions:  i)  The  managing  authority  is  reminded  that  it  has  overall  responsibility  for  the  management  verifications. It can choose to entrast some or all of  these  tasks  to  other  bodies.  However,  it  cannot  delegate the  overall responsibility  for  ensuring that  they  are  properly  carried  out.  Therefore,  where  certain  tasks  have  been  entrusted  to  other  bodies,  the  managing  authority  should,  in  its  supervisory  capacity,  obtain  assurance  that  the  tasks have been properly carried out.  MA, ANRMAP, UCVAP  The  Romanian  authorities  have  provided  the  following  information  (letter  Ares(2011)1076539/11.10.2011,  ARES  1129227/24.10.2011  and  letter  no  653/31.10.2011), namely:  a)  Reports  on  the  management  verifications  carried  out  by  the  managing authority;  The  following  significant  findings  b)  Revised  agreement  of  9  September  identified  distorted  the  competition  In this  view,  as  routine  supervision  and,  certainly,  2011 on the set up of the system related  where  managing  authority  has  concerns  that  the  by  limiting  the  access  to  the  market  to  the  verifications  of  public  tasks are not being properly  carried, it should  carry  of the bidders:  procurement  procedures,  together  with  out  own  verifications  by  examining  a  sample  of  legal  framework  ensuring  the  i)  use  of  discriminatory  files. The  number  of files in the  sample  should  be  accountability  of  the  bodies  entrusted  technical  criteria  for  based  on  a  risk  assessment  taking  as  well  into  with the  checks  on public  procurement  selection  stage  of  restricted  account  the  quality/reliability  of  the  work  procedures. The definition  of tasks  and  performed  by ANRMAP and UCVAP.  procedures;  responsibilities of all bodies involved in  ii)  unjustified  use of accelerated  ii)  The  tasks  and  responsibilities  of  all  bodies  the  public  procurement  verification  procedures;  involved  in  public  procurement  (managing  system  have  been  redefined  and  the  authority,  ANRMAP  and  UCVAP)  should  be  accountability  of ex ante control bodies  iii)  incorrect  use  of  Article  122  clearly  defined  for  each step  of the process  so that  (ANRMAP  and  UCVAP)  have  been  of  national  Ordinance  checks  tackle  risk  areas  and  identify  in  due  time  formally  reinforced.  These  two  public  34/2006  (additional  works  problems  and  irregularities  and  propose  remedial  procurement  bodies  are  now  subject  to  contracted  as  similar  works  actions and/or financial corrections.  audits performed by the audit authority.  through  negotiated  procedure  without  iii)  It  is  recommended  to  formally  reinforce  the  c)  Description  of  the  risk  factors  taken  51  ШР Audit fínding Summar)' of fínding ШерщвЩе bojdy^^^ Deliverables to be provided within 2 months publishing a contract notice) accountability of the two bodies (ANRMAP and UCVAP) entrusted to regulate and verify ex ante Therefore, in the opinion of the the public procurement procedures in Romania. auditors, the basic public procurement principles of equal The institutions verifying ex ante public treatment and non-discrimination and procurement aspects should act as delegated bodies, sound financial management have part of the management and control systems of the not been complied with. operational programmes, being legally accountable for their actions, while the managing authority In addition, despite several layers of should remain ultimately responsible for the correct verifications, neither A1SDRMAP and UCVAP, nor the managing authority spending of funds. into account for the verifications performed. According to the revised set-up of the management and control system, the managing authority performs ex post verifications on public procurement procedures regardless whether these procedures have been verified ex ante by the ANRMAP or UCVAP. The selection of procedures to be verified takes into account risk factors and specific sampling methodology. identified the irregularities presented When re-defining relationship and division of tasks below. between managing authority, ANRMAP and UCVAP, the process should be based on the d) Revised procedures on management provisions of the "Guidance document on verification. management verifications to be carried out by Member States on operations co-financed by the e) AA's reports on compliance audit Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund for the carried out on ANRMAP and UCVAP 2007 - 2013 programming period" (COCOF 08/0020/04). Commission analysis and recommendation: iv) With regard to the contents of the management verifications, the responsible bodies should focus on the substance and on the risky areas, rather than Please see section 3.i) of the report. on the formal aspects. The content of tendering notice, regarding the selection and award criteria, the respect of the legally applicable deadlines and the adequacy of the tendering procedure (in particular for negotiated procedure) shall be duly checked ex-ante by ANRMAP, in full, and by the MA in its supervisory role on a sample basis. The transparency and the fairness of the procurement procedure and, in particular, the selection and the award phases by the correct ш  ^įuditniiaiiig  ; Suïnmaiy of fiiiäing :;:ŕ­ Actions description & sį  Responsible body4 Documents provided  Oėliverabies tö be proviäed within 12 montłiś  jXpimoidr­­':.  application  of the  corresponding  published  criteria,  should  be  carefully  monitored  by  UCVAP,  when  participating  as  observer  in  the  respective  committees  and  by the MA, in  its supervisory  role  on a sample basis.  v)  The  responsible  bodies  (MA  and  ANRMAP/UCVAP supervised by the MA as a first  level  of  control)  should  carry  out  effective  management  verifications,  resulting  in  the  identification  of  all  irregular  expenditure  and  leading to the necessary  corrective measures by the  MA  including financial corrections  and  preventing  declaration  of  ineligible  expenditure  to  the  Commission  if  the  public  procurement  procedure  has  not  been  legal  and  regular  even  if  the  other  bodies (ANRMAP/UCVAP)  have not identified  the  issues. When the irregularities  are not detected and  corrections  not  made  at  the  first  level  of  control  then  the  correction  should  be  made  at the  level  of  СРА which serves as a second independent level of  control.  vi) Overall coordination of the bodies and increased  and  continuous  capacity  building within  the bodies  will  be  critical  success  factors  in  promptly  improving the management of the EU funds.  The auditors were informed  that there is already an  action plan running in the context  of increasing the  capacity  to  absorb  EU  funds  which  may  fit  into  some of the Commission recommendations.  Deliverables:  a)  Reports  on  management  verifications  methodology  with  focus  on  public  procurement  carried out by the managing authority.  53  ш  шшт finding  Summary of  finding  Responsible ЕЬЙ^ЙШШ^^  b) Revised  agreement  on the  set up  of the  system  related  to  the  verifications  of  public  procurement  procedures,  together  with  legal  framework  ensuring the  accountability  of the  bodies  entrusted  with the checks on public procurement procedures.  c) Up­dated  workflows  and  procedures  focusing  on risk areas.  Discriminator  y  technical  selection  criteria  The  audit  team  identified  that  discriminatory technical  criteria were  used  in the  selection  of tenderers  for  two public procurement procedures.  Actions:  a) The managing authority is requested to verify  all  works contracts under the priority axis 2.1 to screen  for the existence of discriminatory  selection criteria  in  the  tender  notice.  The  results  of  this  analysis  These  types  of  irregularities  should  should be reported to the Commission  have  been  detected  ex­ante,  at  the  level  of  ANEMAP,  when  verifying  b)  Managing  authority  and  ANRMAP  should  before publication, the compliance of  update  their  procedures  and  improve  their  tender  notices  with  relevant  EU  and  verifications  in  order  to  identify  and  prevent  the  national legislation.  occurrence of such cases.  MA, ANRMAP, UCVAP  The  Romanian  authorities  have  provided  the  following  information  (letters  Ares(2011)1076539/11.10.2011  and  ARES  1129227/24.10.2011), namely:  a)  With  regard  to  the  screening  of  all  works  contracts  under  the  priority  axis  2.1,  the managing  authority  provided  a  data base of the 46 contracts  for  which  suspected  irregularities  have  been  ANRMAP  can  perform  these  Deliverables:  identified  with  focus  on  public  verifications  also  by  the  help  of  a  procurement  together  with  the  a) Report on the verifications  carried out.  database  developed  in  compliance  verification  reports.  Following  the  with Article  101, of Order 9215/2006.  verifications  carried  out  by  the  c) Up­dated  workflows  and  procedures  focusing  Secondly, the management  authority,  on risk areas.  managing  authority,  irregularities  have  the  body  responsible  for  the  been confirmed for 29 contracts and the  d) The Managing authority must follow­up  possible  implementation  of  the  programme,  management  authority  proposed  fraud  indicators and report such identified  cases to  should  have  detected  such  cases  of  financial corrections  for  the  amount  of  national competent bodies and to OLAF.  non­compliance  during  their  checks  EUR 20.507.752,24.  for the management verifications.  b)  Up­dated  procedures  for  management  verifications  including  the  risk  assessment to be carried out.  c)  With  regard  to  allegations  of  fraud  raised  by  the  Commission,  the  54  kjfOV:; Щ;{:;Щ^ ■fi Romanian authorities confirmed only one case of the conflict of interest. For the other two cases, national investigations are under progress. Commission recommendation: analysis and Please see section 3.ii) of the report. 3. The Contracting Authorities made use of certain actions taken in the context of the recovery package, as explained in Council's communication of 12 December 2008, transposed in the national ordinance 51/2009. Specifically, shortened deadlines have been set in the tender notices, for works tenders launched during 2009 and 2010. MA, ANRMAP, UCVAP a) The managing authority is requested to make sure that all works contracts under the priority axis 2.1 are verified for the existence of discriminatory selection criteria in the tender notice. The results of this analysis should be reported to the Commission b) ANRMAP on use of accelerated including best practice cases. procedures Please see comment above for documents requested under pomts a) and c). The guidance requested under point b) was provided by AMRMAP under the format of a national Order no. 509/2011. Commission recommendation: analysis ANRMAP took a horizontal c) Managing authority and ANRMAP should approach and allowed the use of Please see section 3.ii) of the report. shortened deadlines, instead of in order to identify and prevent the having a case by case assessment of occurrence of such cases. the urgency and complexity of the contracts to be awarded by taking into account the principle of proportionality. on the verifications carried out. Nonetheless, both the Directive b) provided to contracting authorities. 2004/18 and national ANRMAP focusing Order no. 51/2009, Article 3, c) stipulate that this principle need to be on risk areas. considered when taking the decision and ш шшшrinding Summary of finding Actions description & Responsible body / Documents provided Deliverables llöBl provided within 2 months ffliffiU! of using accelerated procedures so that the acceleration of the procedure should not be an impedimerit for the enterprises to submit appropriate tenders. I Additional works contracted as similar works The Contracting Authoijity has made use of the provisions of Article 122 of OUG 34/2006, which states that the Cor.tracting Authority is allowed to apply the negotiated procedure without publication of a contraci: notice for contracting similar works. However, the auditors identified that additional works haye been contracted under addenda under the umbrella of similar works. The amounts foreseen foil similar works are 3 times the initial contracted value. Actions: MA, ANRMAP, UCVAP a) Managing authority should screen all contracts Please see comment under action 2. under axis 2.1 to identify and correct cases where additional works have been contracted under the analysis Commission name of similar works. recommendation: Deliverables: a) Reports on the verifications performed to be provided within 2 months. and Please see section 3.ii) of the report. 56 '9