This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Clarification on the application of procurement corrections in ESIF projects'.

EN 
ANNEX 
Guidelines 
for determining financial corrections to be made to expenditure financed by the  Union 
under shared management, for non-compliance with the rules on public procurement 

 

link to page 3 link to page 3 link to page 3 link to page 3 link to page 4 link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 17 link to page 17   
Table of Contents 
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 4 
1.1. 
Purpose and scope of the guidelines ............................................................................ 4 
1.2. 
Legal basis and reference documents........................................................................... 5 
1.2.1. 
Guidelines on financial corrections ............................................................................. 6 
1.2.2. 
Union law applicable to contract awards not (or not fully) subject to the Public 
Procurement Directives
................................................................................................ 6 

1.3. 
Criteria to consider when deciding which rate of correction to apply ......................... 7 
2. 
Main types of irregularities and corresponding rates of financial corrections ............. 9 
2.1. 
Contract notice and tender specifications..................................................................... 9 
2.2. 
Evaluation of tenders.................................................................................................. 15 
2.3. Contract 
implementation ............................................................................................ 18 
 

 

 
1. 
Introduction  
1.1. 
Purpose and scope of the guidelines  
Guidelines for the financial corrections should be applied primarily in the case of irregularities 
which constitute breaches of public procurement rules applicable to contracts financed from the 
Union budget and subject to the shared management method. These public procurement rules are 
laid out in the Directives on public procurement as specified in section 1.2 (hereinafter - the 
‘Directives’) and in the relevant national law.  
The rates of corrections provided in section 2 are also applicable to contracts not (or not fully) 
subject to the Directivesi. The range of rates between 5% and 100% established in section 2 are 
the same as the ones set out in the Commission Decision of 19 October 2011 on the approval of 
guidelines on the principles, criteria and indicative scales to be applied in respect of financial 
corrections made by the Commission under Articles 99 and 100 of Council Regulation (EC) 
No 1083/20061 (hereafter – the "Decision on financial corrections"). For Articles 97 and 98 of 
Council Regulation (EC) N°1198/2006 of 27 July 2006, the same range of rates of correction was 
reproduced, mutantis mutandis, in the "Guidelines on financial corrections principles, criteria and 
indicative scales to be applied in respect of financial corrections made by the Commission under 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006", applicable to the European Fisheries Fund (hereafter  - 
the "EFF guidelines"). For Article 44 of Council Decision 2007/435/EC of 25 June 2007, Article 
46 of Decision No 573/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007, 
Article 48 of Decision No 574/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 
2007 and Article 46 of Decision No 575/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 23 May 2007, a similar approach was also applied with the Commission Decision C(2011)9771 
of 22 December 2011 on the approval of guidelines on the principles, criteria and indicative scales 
to be applied in respect of financial corrections made by the Commission under the four Funds of 
the General Programme "Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows" (hereafter "the IF, 
ERFIII, EBF and RF Decision on financial corrections"). 
These guidelines replace and update the previous guidelines on the same subject (see recital 5 of 
this Decision). The updated guidelines reflect the experience drawn from the application of the 
previous guidelines and intends to bring clarification on the level of corrections to be applied in 
line with the principle of proportionality and taking into account the relevant case-law. The main 
differences compared to previous guidance are: 1) clarification on the level of corrections to be 
applied for some cases, introducing clearer criteria; 2) inclusion of further irregularities not 
specified in previous guidance but corresponding to cases where irregularities were detected 
during Union audits and for which financial corrections have been made; 3) harmonization of the 
level of corrections covering contracts subject to Directives and to Treaty principles. Furthermore, 
the scope of the guidelines has been widened as the new guidelines apply also to other expenditure 
than that of the Structural Funds or the Cohesion Fund. 
These guidelines should be applied when making financial corrections related to irregularities 
detected after the date of their adoption. In relation to audit findings and financial corrections of 
                                                 
1 C(2011) 7321 final. 

 

the Structural Funds, Cohesion Fund, EFF and the four Funds of the General Programme 
"Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows" for which the contradictory procedure with the 
Member State is on-going as at the date of adoption of these guidelines, the Commission will 
apply the previous existing guidelines (mentioned in recital 5 of this Decision) or these guidelines, 
ensuring that the rate of correction is the one more favourable to the Member State. 
These guidelines also address the need to correct tender evaluations affected by conflicts of 
interests in respect of which a specific type of irregularity is introduced in section 2 (see 
irregularity n° 21). 
These guidelines also contribute to address the European Parliament 2010 discharge 
recommendation to harmonise the treatment of public procurement errors for the following policy 
areas: Agriculture and Natural Resources, Cohesion, Energy and Transport and to promote an 
increased harmonisation of the European Court of Auditors’ and the Commission’s quantification 
of irregularities in public procurement. The Commission will invite the European Court of 
Auditors to apply these guidelines in the context of their audit work, in order to address the above-
mentioned European Parliament's recommendation. 
The types of irregularities described in section 2 are the most frequently found types of 
irregularities. Other irregularities not indicated in that section should be dealt with in accordance 
with the principle of proportionality and, where possible, by analogy to the types of irregularities 
identified in these guidelines. 
Where the Commission detects irregularities related to the non-compliance with public 
procurement rules, it determines the amount of the financial correction applicable in accordance 
with these guidelines. The amount of the financial correction is calculated in view of the 
expenditure amount declared to the Commission and related to the contract (or part of it) affected 
by the irregularity. The percentage of the suitable scale applies to the amount of the affected 
expenditure declared to the Commission for the contract in question. The same correction rate 
should be applied also to any future expenditure related to the same affected contract, before such 
expenditure is certified to the Commission. Practical example: The amount of the expenditure 
declared to the Commission for a works contract concluded after the application of illegal criteria 
is EUR 10 000 000. If the applicable correction rate is 25%, the amount to be deducted from the 
expenditure statement to the Commission is EUR 2 500 000. Accordingly, the Union financing is 
reduced on the basis of the relevant financing rate. If afterwards the national authorities intend to 
declare further expenditure concerning the same contract and affected by the same irregularity, 
that expenditure should be subject to the same correction rate. In the end, the entire value of the 
payments related to the contract are corrected on the basis of the same correction rate. 
The Member States also detect irregularitiesii; in such event, they are required to make the 
necessary corrections. The competent authorities in the Member States are recommended to apply 
the same criteria and rates when correcting irregularities detected by their own services, unless 
they apply stricter standards. 
1.2. 
Legal basis and reference documents  
These guidelines take into account Article 80(4) of the Regulation (EU,EURATOM) No 966/2012 
on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, sector-specific rules 
applicable to the Union co-financing subject to the shared management method, the Directivesiii, 

 

and the reference documents specified in sections 1.2.1 and 1.2.2, namely the Decision on 
financial corrections, the EFF guidelines and the Commission interpretative communication 
n° 2006/C 179/02 on the "Community law applicable to contract awards not (or not fully) subject 
to the provisions of the Public Procurement Directives".  
In section 2, reference is made to Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the 
water, energy, transport and postal services sectors2 and Directive 2004/18/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award 
of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts3. If a public 
procurement procedure or contract is governed by a prior or subsequent Directive, the correction 
will be made in line with section 2, where possible, or by analogy to the cases described in that 
section. Furthermore, the various national public procurement provisions transposing the 
mentioned Directives should also be considered as a reference when analysing the irregularities at 
stake. 
1.2.1.  Guidelines on financial corrections 
The Decision on financial corrections applies to the programming period 2007-2013iv and sets out 
the general framework and the scales of flat-rate financial corrections applied by the Commission 
under shared management method for the European Regional Development Fund, the European 
Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund. The EFF guidelines also reflect the same approach set out in 
the Decision on financial corrections. The present guidelines follow the same reasoning and scale 
of corrections. The IF, ERFIII, EBF and RF Decision on financial corrections reflects this 
approach in regard to the four Funds of the General Programme "Solidarity and Management of 
Migration Flows". The document VI/5330/97 fixes the Guidelines for the calculation of financial 
consequences when preparing the decision regarding the Clearance of the Accounts of EAGGF 
Guarantee. 
1.2.2.  Union law applicable to contract awards not (or not fully) subject to the 
Public Procurement Directives  
As set out in Commission interpretative communication No 2006/C 179/02 on the Community 
law applicable to contract awards not (or not fully) subject to the provisions of the Public 
Procurement Directives (hereinafter "the interpretative communication"), the Court of Justice of 
the European Union has confirmed that "the rules and the principles of the EC Treaty apply also 
to contracts that fall outside the scope of the Directives". 
According to points 1.1 and 1.2 of the interpretative communication, contracting entities from 
Member States have to comply with the rules and principles of the Treaty on the Functioning of 
the European Union whenever they conclude public contracts falling into the scope of the Treaty. 
These principles include the free movement of goods (Article 34 TFEU), the right of 
establishment (Article 49 TFEU), the freedom to provide services (Article 56 TFEU), non-
discrimination and equal treatment, transparency, proportionality and mutual recognition.”  
The Court of Justice  has developed a set of basic standards for the award of public contracts 
which are derived directly from the rules and principles of the EC Treaty. The principles of equal 
                                                 
2 OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 1–113. 
3 OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 114–240. 

 

treatment and non-discrimination on grounds of nationality imply an obligation of transparency. 
This obligation, according to the case-law of the Court of Justicev, "consists in ensuring, for the 
benefit of any potential tenderer, a degree of advertising sufficient to enable the services market 
to be opened up to competition and the impartiality of the procedures to be reviewed".”  

The concept of “sufficient degree of advertising” vi must be interpreted in the light of the 
principles enshrined in the Treaty, as interpreted by the Court of Justice and summed up in the 
interpretative communication.  
In light of judgments of the Court of Justice in cases C-412/044, joined cases C-147/06 and C-
148/065, and C-507/036, within the context of an infringement procedure, when claiming non-
compliance with the rules and principles of the Treaty “it is for the Commission to establish that” 
- notwithstanding the fact that a contract is not (or not fully) subject to the provisions of the 
Directives, the contract at stake “was of certain interest to an undertaking located in a different 
Member State to that of the relevant contracting authority, and  

- that that undertaking was unable to express its interest in that contract because it did not have 
access to adequate information before the contract was awarded”
vii.  
According to paragraph 34 of the judgment in Case C-507/03, “a mere statement by [the 
Commission] (…) that a complaint was made to it in relation to the contract in question is not 
sufficient to establish that the contract was of certain cross-border interest and that there was 
therefore a failure to fulfil obligations”

In this context, when detecting cases of apparent non-respect of principles of transparency and 
non-discrimination in contracts not (or not fully) subject to the provisions of the Directives, there 
is a need to determine whether there are elements that would substantiate cross-border interest, 
including the following: 
- the subject-matter of the contract,  
- its estimated value, the specifics of the sector concerned (size and structure of the market, 
commercial practices, etc.),  
- the geographic location of the place of performance,  
- evidence of tenders from other Member States or expressed interest by companies from a 
different Member State.  
Regardless of the existence of a certain cross-border interestviii in relation to a given contract not 
(or not fully) subject to the provisions of the Directives, there is a need to examine whether the 
expenditure declared for that contract complies with the national rules on public procurement.   
If cross-border interest exists or there is non-compliance with national legislation, the 
Commission may propose the application of a financial correction based on the criteria 
                                                 
Commission v. Italy [2008] ECR I-619. 
SECAP SpA and Santorso Soc. V. Comune di Torino [2008] ECR I-3565. 
Commission v. Ireland [2007] ECR I-9777. 

 

established below in section 1.3 and on the scales of corrections defined in section 2. When 
assessing the cases of non-compliance with national public procurement law  the Commission 
shall take into consideration the national interpretative rules by the competent national authorities. 
1.3. 
Criteria to consider when deciding which rate of correction to apply  
These guidelines set out a range of corrections of 5%, 10%, 25% and 100% that are applied to the 
expenditure of a contract. They take into account the seriousness of the irregularity and the 
principle of proportionality. These rates of corrections are applied when it is not possible to 
quantify precisely the financial implications for the contract in question. 
The seriousness of an irregularity related to non-compliance with the rules on public procurement 
and the related financial impact to the Union budget is assessed taking into account the following 
factors: level of competition, transparency and equal treatment. When the non-compliance at stake 
has a deterrent effect to potential tenderers or when the non-compliance leads to the award of a 
contract to a tender other than the one that should have been awarded, this is a strong indicator 
that the irregularity is serious. 
When the irregularity is only of a formal nature without any actual or potential financial impact, 
no correction will be made. 
Where a number of irregularities are detected in the same tender procedure, the rates of correction 
are not cumulated, the most serious irregularity being taken as an indication to decide the rate of 
correction (5 %, 10%, 25% or 100%). 
After a correction of a certain type of irregularities has been implemented and the Member State 
does not take the appropriate corrective measures in regard to other tender procedures affected by 
the same type of irregularities, the rates of financial corrections may be increased to a higher level 
of correction (i.e. 10%, 25% or 100%). 
A financial correction of 100% may be applied in the most serious cases when the irregularity 
favours certain tenderer(s)/ candidate(s) or where the irregularity relates to fraud, as established 
by a competent judicial or administrative body. 

 

 
2. 
MAIN TYPES OF IRREGULARITIES AND CORRESPONDING RATES OF FINANCIAL CORRECTIONS 
2.1. 
Contract notice and tender specifications 
No  Type of irregularity 
Applicable law / reference  Description of the irregularity 
Rate of correction 
document 
1. 
Lack of publication of contract  Articles 35 and 58 of The contract notice was not 100%  
notice. 
Directive  2004/18/EC 
published in accordance with the 
relevant rules (e.g. publication in the  25% if publication of a contract 
Article 42 of Directive 
Official Journal of the European  notice(s) is required by the Directives 
2004/17/EC 
Union (OJEU) where this is required  and the contract notice(s) was(not 
by the Directivesix). 
published in the OJEU but it was 
Section 2.1 of the Commission 
published in a way that ensures that 
interpretative communication 
an undertaking located in another 
n° 2006/C 179/02 
Member State has access to 
appropriate information regarding the 
public procurement before it is 
awarded, so that it would be in a 
position to submit a tender or express 
its interest to participate in obtaining 
that contract. In practice, this means 
that either the contract notice was 
published at national level (following 
the national legislation or rules in that 
regard) or the basic standards for the 
publication of contract notice was 
respected. For more details on these 
standards, see section 2.1 of the 
Commission interpretative 

 

 
No  Type of irregularity 
Applicable law / reference  Description of the irregularity 
Rate of correction 
document 
communication n° 2006/C 179/02. 
2. 
Artificial splitting of 
Article 9(3) of Directive 
 A works project or proposed 100%  
works/services/supplies 
2004/18/EC 
purchase of a certain quantity of 
contracts. 
supplies and/or services is 
25% if publication of a contract 
Article 17(2) of Directive subdivided resulting in its coming  notice is required by the Directives 
2004/17/EC 
outside  the scope of the Directives,  and the contract notice was not 
i.e., preventing its publication in  published in the OJEU but it was 
 
OJEU for the whole set of works,  published in a way that ensures that 
services or supplies at stake. 
an undertaking located in another 
Member State has access to 
appropriate information regarding the 
public procurement before it is 
awarded, so that it would be in a 
position to submit a tender or express 
its interest to participate in obtaining 
that contract. In practice, this means 
that either the contract notice was  
published at national level (following 
the national legislation or rules in that 
regard) or the basic standards for the 
publication of contract notice was 
respected. For more details on these 
standards, see section 2.1 of the 
Commission interpretative 
communication n° 2006/C 179/02.  

 

 
No  Type of irregularity 
Applicable law / reference  Description of the irregularity 
Rate of correction 
document 
3. Non-compliance 
with 
Article 38 of Directive 
The time limits for receipt of tenders  25% if reduction in time limits >= 
2004/18/EC 
(or receipt of requests to participate)  50%  
- time limits for receipt of 
were lower than the time limits in the 
tenders;  
Article 45 of Directive 
Directives. 
10% if reduction in time limits >= 
2004/17/EC 
30% 
or 
 
5% if any other reduction in time 
- time limits for receipt of 
limits (this correction rate may be 
requests to participatex.  
reduced to between 2% and 5%, 
where the nature and gravity of the 
deficiency is not considered to justify 
a 5% correction rate). 
4.  Insufficient time for potential  Article 39(1) of Directive Time for potential 
25% if the time that potential 
tenderers/candidates to obtain 2004/18/EC  
tenderers/candidates to obtain tender  tenderers/candidates have to obtain 
tender documentation 
documentation is too short, thus  tender documentation is less than 
Article 46(1) of Directive creating an unjustified obstacle to the  50% of time limits for receipt of 
 
2004/17/EC 
opening up of public procurement to  tenders (in line with relevant 
competition. 
provisions). 
Corrections are applied on a case by  10% if the time that potential 
case basis. In determining the level  tenderers/candidates have to obtain 
of the correction, account will be  tender documentation is less than 
taken of possible mitigating factors  60% of time limits for receipt of 
related to the specificity and tenders (in line with relevant 
complexity of the contract, in provisions). 
particular a possible administrative 
burden or difficulties in providing  5% if the time that potential 
10 
 

 
No  Type of irregularity 
Applicable law / reference  Description of the irregularity 
Rate of correction 
document 
the tender documentation. 
tenderers/candidates have to obtain 
tender documentation is less than 
80% of time limits for receipt of 
tenders (in line with relevant 
provisions). 
5. 
Lack of publication of 
Article 2 and Article 38(7) of  The time limits for receipt of tenders  10% 
Directive 2004/18/EC 
(or receipt of requests to participate) 
- extended time limits for 
were extended without publication in  The correction can be decreased to 
receipt of tenders;  
Articles 10 and 45(9) of accordance with the relevant rules  5% depending on the seriousness of 
Directive 2004/17/EC 
(i.e., publication in the OJEU if the  the irregularity. 
or 
public procurement is covered by the 
Directives). 
 
- extended time limits for 
receipt of requests to 
participatexi. 
6. 
Cases not justifying the use of  Article 30(1) of Directive 
 Contracting authority awards a 25% 
the negotiated procedure with  2004/18/EC 
public contract by negotiated 
prior publication of a contract 
procedure, after publication of a  The correction can be reduced to 10% 
notice. 
contract notice, but such procedure is  or 5% depending on the seriousness 
not justified by the relevant of the irregularity. 
provisions. 
 
7. 
For the award of contracts in the  Directive 2009/81/EC 
100%. 
Contracting authority awards a 
field of defence and security 
public contract in the area of defence 
falling under directive 
The correction can be decreased to 
and security by means of a 
2009/81/EC specifically, 
25%, 10% or 5% depending on the 
competitive dialogue or negotiated 
11 
 

 
No  Type of irregularity 
Applicable law / reference  Description of the irregularity 
Rate of correction 
document 
inadequate justification for the 
procedure without publication of a  seriousness of the irregularity. 
lack of publication of a contract 
contract notice whereas the 
notice 
circumstances do not justify the use   
of such a procedure. 
8. 
Failure to state: 
Articles 36, 44, 45 to 50 and  The contract notice does not set out  25% 
53 of Directive 2004/18/EC  the selection criteria. 
- the selection criteria in the  and Annexes VII-A (public 
The correction can be decreased to 
contract notice; 
contract notices: points 17 and  And/or 
10% or 5% if the selection/award 
23) and VII-B (public works 
criteria were stated in the contract 
and/or  
concessions notices: point 5)  When neither the contract notice nor  notice (or in the tender specifications, 
thereof. 
the tender specifications describe in  as regards award criteria) but with 
- the award criteria (and their 
sufficient detail the award criteria as  insufficient detail. 
weighting) in the contract notice  Articles 42, 54 and 55 and  well as their weighting. 
or in the tender specifications. 
Annex XIII of Directive 
2004/17/EC 
9. 
Unlawful and/or discriminatory  Articles 45 to 50 and 53 of  Cases in which operators have been  25%  
selection and/or award criteria  Directive 2004/18/EC 
deterred from bidding because of 
laid down in the contract notice 
unlawful selection and/or award The correction can be decreased to 
or tender documents 
Articles 54 and 55 of Directive  criteria laid down in the contract  10% or 5% depending on the 
2004/17/EC 
notice or tender documents. For seriousness of the irregularity. 
example: 
 
- obligation to already have an 
establishment or representative in the 
country or region; 
12 
 

 
No  Type of irregularity 
Applicable law / reference  Description of the irregularity 
Rate of correction 
document 
- tenderers’ possession of experience 
in the country or region. 
 
10.  Selection criteria not related and  Article 44 (2) of Directive   When it can be demonstrated that the  25%  
proportionate to the subject- 2004/18/EC 
minimum capacity levels of ability 
matter of the contract 
for a specific contract are not related  The correction can be decreased to 
Article 54(2) of Directive 
 and proportionate to the subject- 10% or 5% depending on the 
2004/17/EC 
matter of the contract, thus not  seriousness of the irregularity. 
ensuring equal access for tenderers 
 
or having the effect of creating   
unjustified obstacles to the opening 
up of public procurement to 
competition. 
11. Discriminatory 
technical Article 23(2) of Directive 
 Setting technical standards that are  25% 
specifications  
2004/18/EC 
too specific, thus not ensuring equal 
access for tenderers or having the  The correction can be decreased to 
Article 34(2) of Directive 
 effect of creating unjustified 
10% or 5% depending on the 
2004/17/EC 
obstacles to the opening up of public  seriousness of the irregularity. 
procurement to competition. 
12. Insufficient definition of the Article 2 of Directive 
The description in the contract notice  10%  
subject-matter of the contract  
2004/18/EC 
and/or the tender specifications is 
insufficient for potential 
The correction can be decreased to 
Article 10 of Directive 
tenderers/candidates to determine the  5% depending on the seriousness of 
2004/17/EC  
subject-matter of the contract. 
the irregularity. 
 
13 
 

 
No  Type of irregularity 
Applicable law / reference  Description of the irregularity 
Rate of correction 
document 
Cases C-340/02 
In case the implemented works were 
(Commission/France) and C-
not published, the corresponding 
299/08 (Commission/France) 
amount is subject to a correction of 
100% 
 
2.2. 
Evaluation of tenders 
No  Type of irregularity 
Legal  basis  /  Description of irregularity 
Rate of correction 
reference 
document 

13.  Modification of selection criteria after  Article 2 and The selection criteria were modified during the selection  25%  
opening of tenders, resulting in Article 44 (1) of  phase, resulting in acceptance of tenderers that should not 
incorrect acceptance of tenderers. 
Directive 
have been accepted if the published selection criteria had  The correction can be 
2004/18/EC 
been followed. 
decreased to 10% or 
5% depending on the 
Article 10 and 
seriousness of the 
Article 54(2) of 
irregularity. 
Directive 
2004/17/EC 
14.  Modification of selection criteria after  Articles 2 and 44  The selection criteria were modified during the selection  25%  
opening of tenders, resulting in (1) of Directive  phase, resulting in rejection of tenderers that should have  The correction can be 
incorrect rejection of tenderers  
2004/18/EC 
been accepted if the published selection criteria had been  decreased to 10% or 
followed. 
5% depending on the 
 
Articles 10 and 
seriousness of the 
54(2)  of 
irregularity. 
14 
 

 
No  Type of irregularity 
Legal  basis  /  Description of irregularity 
Rate of correction 
reference 
document 

Directive 
2004/17/EC 
15. Evaluation of tenderers/candidates Article 53 of During the evaluation of tenderers/candidates, the selection  25% 
using unlawful selection or award  Directive 
criteria were used as award criteria, or the award criteria (or 
criteria 
2004/18/EC 
respective sub-criteria or weightings) stated in the contract  The correction can be 
notice or tender specifications were not followed, resulting  decreased to 10% or 
Article 55 of in the application of unlawful selection or award criteria. 
5% depending on the 
Directive 
seriousness of the 
2004/17/EC 
Example: Sub-criteria used for the award of the contract are  irregularity. 
not related to the award criteria in the contract notice/tender 
specifications. 
16.  Lack of transparency and/or equal  Articles 2 and 43  The audit trail concerning in particular the scoring given to  25%  
treatment during evaluation 
of Directive 
each bid is unclear/unjustified/lacks transparency or is non-
2004/18/EC 
existent. 
The correction can be 
reduced to 10% or 5% 
And/or  
Articles 10 of 
depending on the 
Directive 
The evaluation report does not exist or does not contain all  seriousness of the 
2004/17/EC 
the elements required by the relevant provisions. 
irregularity. 
17. Modification of a tender during Article 2 of 
The contracting authority allows a tenderer/candidate to  25%  
evaluation 
Directive 
modify its tender during evaluation of offers 
2004/18/EC 
The correction can be 
reduced to 10% or 5% 
Article 10 of 
depending on the 
Directive 
seriousness of the 
15 
 

 
No  Type of irregularity 
Legal  basis  /  Description of irregularity 
Rate of correction 
reference 
document 

2004/17/EC irregularity. 
18. 
Negotiation during the award 
Article 2 of 
In the context of an open or restricted procedure, the  25% 
procedure  
Directive 
contracting authority negotiates with the bidders during the 
2004/18/EC 
evaluation stage, leading to a substantial modification of  The correction can be 
the initial conditions set out in the contract notice or tender  reduced to 10% or 5% 
Article 10 of specifications.  
depending on the 
Directive 
seriousness of the 
2004/17/EC 
irregularity. 
 
19. Negotiated procedure with prior Article 30 of In the context of a negotiation procedure with prior  25% 
publication of a contract notice with  Directive  
publication of a contract notice, the initial conditions of the 
substantial modification of the 
2004/18/EC 
contract were substantially altered, thus justifying the  The correction can be 
conditions set out in the contract notice 
publication of a new tender. 
reduced to 10% or 5% 
or tender specificationsxii  
depending on the 
seriousness of the 
irregularity. 
 
20.  Rejection of abnormally low 
tenders  Article 55 of Tenders appear to be abnormally low in relation to the  25% 
Directive  
goods, works or services but the contracting authority, 
2004/18/EC 
before rejecting those tenders, does not request in writing   
details of the constituent elements of the tender which it 
16 
 

 
No  Type of irregularity 
Legal  basis  /  Description of irregularity 
Rate of correction 
reference 
document 

Article 57 of considers relevant. 
Directive  
2004/17/EC 
21.  Conflict of interest  
Article 

of  When a conflict of interest has been established by a  100% 
Directive 
competent judicial or administrative body, either from the 
2004/18/EC 
part of the beneficiary of the contribution paid by the Union 
or the contracting authority. 
Article 10 of 
Directive 
 
2004/17/EC 
 
2.3. 
Contract implementation 
No  Type of irregularity 
Legal 
basis 
/  Description of irregularity 
Rate of correction 
reference 
document 

22. Substantial modification of the Article 2 of 
The essential elements of the award of the  25% of the amount of the contract 
contract elements set out in the  Directive 
contract include but are not limited to 
contract notice or tender 
2004/18/EC 
pricexiv, nature of the works, the plus 
specificationsxiii 
completion period, the terms of payment, 
Article 10 of 
and the materials used. It is always  the value of the additional amount of the 
Directive 
necessary to make an analysis on a case- contract resulting from the substantial 
2004/17/EC Case  by-case basis of what is an essential 
17 
 

 
No  Type of irregularity 
Legal 
basis 
/  Description of irregularity 
Rate of correction 
reference 
document 

law:  
element. 
modification of the contract elements. 
Case C-496/99 P, 
 
CAS Succhi di 
Frutta SpA, 
[2004] ECR I- 
3801 paragraphs 
116 and 118 
Case C-340/02, 
Commission v. 
France
 [2004] 
ECR I- 9845 
Case C-91/08, 
Wall  AG, [2010] 
ECR I- 2815 
 
23.  Reduction in the scope of the 
Article 2 of 
The contract was awarded in compliance  Value of the reduction in the scope 
contract 
Directive 
with the Directives, but was followed by a 
2004/18/EC 
reduction in the scope of the contract. 
Plus 
Article 10 of 
25% of the value of the final scope (only 
Directive 
when the reduction in the scope of the 
2004/17/EC 
contract is substantial). 
18 
 

 
No  Type of irregularity 
Legal 
basis 
/  Description of irregularity 
Rate of correction 
reference 
document 

24. 
Award of additional 
Point 1(c) and The main contract was awarded in 100% of the value of the supplementary 
works/services/supplies contracts 
point 4(a) of 
accordance with the relevant provisions,  contracts. 
(if such award constitutes a Article 31 of 
but was followed by one or more 
substantial modification of the Directive 
additional works/services/supplies 
Where the total of additional 
original terms of the contract xv)  2004/18/EC 
contracts (whether or not formalised in  works/services/supplies contracts 
without competition in the absence 
writing) awarded without complying with  (whether or not formalised in writing) 
of one of the following conditions 
the provisions of the Directives, i.e., the  awarded without complying with the 
provisions related to the negotiated provisions of the Directives does not 
- extreme urgency brought about by 
procedures without publication for reasons  exceed the thresholds of the Directives 
unforeseeable events;  
of extreme urgency brought about by  and 50% of the value of the original 
unforeseeable events or for award of  contract, the correction may be reduced 
- an unforeseen circumstancexvi for 
complementary supplies, works and to 25%. 
complementary works, services, 
services. 
supplies. 
25. Additional works or services Last subparagraph  The main contract was awarded in 100% of the amount exceeding 50% of 
exceeding the limit laid down in the  of §4(a) of Article  accordance with the provisions of the  the value of the original contract  
relevant provisions  
31 of Directive Directives, but was followed by one or 
2004/18/EC 
more supplementary contracts exceeding 
 
the value of the original contract by more 
than 50%xvii.  
 
 
19 
 

 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
ENDNOTES: 
i Public contracts below the thresholds for application of the Directives and public contracts for services listed in Annex I B to Directive 92/50/EEC, Annex XVI B to Directive 
93/38/EEC, Annex II B to Directive 2004/18/EC and Annex XVII B to Directive 2004/17/EC. 
ii In the context of the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund, the following is noted. 
The “Guidance document on management verifications to be carried out by Member States on operations co-financed by the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund for 
the 2007 – 2013 programming period” 
(COCOF note 08/0020/04 of 5 June 2008), sets out the Commission’s view on how the management verifications should be 
organised in order to prevent and detect irregularities in the area of public procurement. As stated in this document, “verifications should be carried out as soon as possible 
after the particular process has occurred as it is often difficult to take corrective action at a later date”
.  
The Member State has the obligation to ensure that operations are selected for funding in accordance with applicable EU and national rules (Articles 60(a)-(b) and 61(b)ii of 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006), including those related to public procurement: 
a) When the national ex-ante control detects that the tender procedure used for a public contract is in breach of public procurement rules and this contract has not been 
signed yet, 
the managing authority should recommend the beneficiary to launch a new tender procedure in full compliance with the mentioned rules if the launching of a 
new tender does not entail significant additional costs. In case no new tender is launched, the managing authority shall correct the irregularity,  by applying these guidelines 
or stricter rules defined at national level. 
b) If an irregularity is detected after the contract has been signed and the operation has been approved for funding (at any stage of the project's cycle), the managing 
authority shall correct the irregularity, by applying these guidelines or stricter rules defined at national level. 
 
iii Depending on the date when the contract procedure was launched, the following Directives are relevant: 86/665/EEC, 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC, 93/37/EEC, 93/38/EEC, 92/13/EEC, 
2001/78/EC, 2004/17/EC, 2004/18/EC. This is only an indicative list. 
iv For the period 2000-2006, the “Guidelines on the principles, criteria and indicative scales to be applied by the Commission departments in determining financial corrections under 
Article 39(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999” were adopted by Commission Decision C/2001/476. A similar document was adopted for the Cohesion Fund (see Commission 
Decision C/2002/2871). 
v Cases C-324/98 Telaustria [2000] ECR I-10745, paragraph 62, C-231/03 Coname, [2005] ECR I-7287, paragraphs 16 to 19 and C-458/03 Parking Brixen, [2005] ECR I-8585, 
paragraph 49. 
vi The concept of “sufficient degree of advertising” implies, in particular, the following considerations: 
a) The principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination imply an obligation of transparency, which consists in ensuring, for the benefit of any potential bidder, 
degree of advertising sufficient to enable the contract to be subject to competition
. The obligation of transparency requires that an undertaking located in another 
20 
 

 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
Member State can have access to appropriate information regarding the contract before it is awarded, so that, if it so wishes, it would be in a position to express its 
interest
 in obtaining the contract. 
b) For individual cases where, because of particular circumstances such as a very modest economic interest at stake, a contract award would be of no interest to economic 
operators located in other Member States. In such a case the effects on the fundamental freedoms are to be regarded as too uncertain and indirect to warrant the application 
of standards derived from primary Community law and consequently there is no ground for application of financial corrections.  
It is the responsibility of the individual contracting entities to decide whether an intended contract award might potentially be of interest to economic operators located in 
other Member States. In the view of the Commission, this decision has to be based on an evaluation of the individual circumstances of the case, such as the subject-matter of 
the contract, its estimated value, the specifics of the sector concerned (size and structure of the market, commercial practices, etc.) and the geographic location of the place 
of performance. 
vii See the judgment in Case C-507/03, Commission v. Ireland, [2007] ECR I-9777, paragraph 32. 
viii Case T-384/10, Spain/Commission (GIASA), OJ C 225, 3.8.2013, p. 63–63.  
ix   For contracts not (or not fully) subject to the Directives, there is a need to determine the existence of a certain cross-border interest or a breach of national legislation on public 
procurement. On this matter, see section 1.2.2 of the present guidelines. If there is cross-border interest or a breach of national law, there is a need to determine what level of 
publicity should have been applied in that case. In this context, as stated in section 2.1.1 of the Commission interpretative communication n° 2006/C 179/02, the obligation of 
transparency requires that an undertaking located in another Member State has access to appropriate information regarding the contract before it is awarded, so that, if it so 
wishes, it would be in a position to submit a tender or to express its interest in obtaining that contract. In practice, this implies that either the contract notice was published at 
national level (following the national legislation or rules in that regard) or the basic standards for the advertising of contracts were respected. See more details on these standards 
on section 2.1 of the mentioned Commission interpretative communication. 
x These time limits are applicable to restricted procedures and negotiated procedures with publication of a contract notice. 
xi These time limits are applicable to restricted procedures and negotiated procedures with publication of a contract notice. 
xii A limited degree of flexibility can be applied to the modifications of a contract after its award even where such possibility as well as for the relevant detailed rules for 
implementation are not provided for in a clear and precise manner in the tender notice or in the tender documents (see point 118 of ECJ Case C-496/99, Succhi di frutta). When 
this possibility is not foreseen in the tender documentation, contract modifications are admitted if they are not substantial. A modification is considered substantial if: 
(a)  the contracting authority introduces conditions, which, had they been part of the initial tender procedure, would have allowed for the admission of tenderers other than those 
initially admitted; 
(b)  the modification allows award of a tender to a tenderer other than the one initially accepted; 
21 
 

 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
(c)  the contracting authority extends the scope of the contract to encompass works/services/supplies not initially covered; 
(d)  the modification changes the economic balance in favour of the contractor in a manner not provided for in the initial contract. 
xiii See endnote xii above.  
xiv For the moment the only modification of the initial price not considered as substantial by the Court concerns the reduction of the price by 1,47 and 2,94% (see points 61 and 62 of 
the Case C-454/06, Pressetext). In cases T-540/10 and T-235/11, the General Court has accepted financial corrections for modifications of less than 2% of the initial price. 
xv See endnote xii above.   
xvi The concept of "unforeseen circumstances" should be interpreted having regard to what a diligent contracting authority should have foreseen (e.g. new requirements resulting from 
the adoption of new EU or national legislation or technical conditions, which could not have been foreseen despite technical investigations underlying the design, and carried out 
according to the state of the art). Additional works/services/supplies caused by insufficient preparation of the tender/project cannot be considered "unforeseen circumstances" See 
cases T-540/10 and T-235/11 (referred to above) 
xvii There is no limit in the case of Directive 2004/17/EC. For the calculation of the 50% threshold, contracting authorities shall take into account the additional works/services. The 
value of these additional works/services cannot be compensated by the value of the cancelled works/services. The amount of cancelled works/services has no impact on the 
calculation of 50% threshold.  
22 
 

Document Outline