Ref. Ares(2020)1091415 - 20/02/2020
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL MARKET, INDUSTRY, ENTREPRENEURSHIP
AND SMES
Single Market for Public Administrations
Public Procurement Strategy
Brussels,
GROW.G.1/
NOTE FOR THE FILE
Subject:
Mission to Berlin on 22 October 2019 – presentation of Guidance on
the participation of third-country bidders to Federation of German
Industries (Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie BDI)
On 22 October 2019, I travelled to Berlin to the headquarters of the Federation of
German Industries (BDI) to give a presentation on the Guidance on third-country
participation to the BDI’s public procurement committee. I had been invited speak before
the committee by Mr
from the BDI following our joint participation in the
panel on the “international aspects of public procurement” at the
forum vergabe conference in Fulda in September 2019.
As was already the case at the
forum vergabe conference, the participants expressed their
generally favourable view for the Guidance. The general view is that the Guidance has
brought welcome clarification with regard to the interpretation of the PP Directives and
the question of access of third-country bidders.
Following the presentation, the committee members asked a number of questions
regarding the Guidance, but also more general questions regarding the IPI and the
international aspects of public procurement. In general, there was a strong interest about
the IPI, in particular about the current state-of-play and the time-table. I explained that an
adoption by the end of 2019 (as announced in the China communication) was not likely.
The questions asked related, in particular, on the relationship between the provision in
Article 25 of Directive 2014/24/EU and the IPI. I explained that the Guidance and the IPI
are complementary, and that the Guidance provides for the possibility to “exclude”
economic operators, whereas the IPI is primarily a market opening tool that aims at
encouraging further market opening through GPA/FTA negotiation and goes further than
Article 25 of Directive 2014/24/EU. Furthermore, there were questions on whether the
rule in Article 85 of Directive 2014/25/EU will be deleted following the adoption of the
IPI (2016 proposal foresees this deletion). It appears that most committee members are
against such deletion and that Article 85 should be kept as a means to impose pressure.
Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111
Another issue that was raised was whether, in relation to the procurement of projects
financed with EU structural funds, it was envisaged to amend the rules so that non-EU
bidders originating in a “non-reciprocity country” could be excluded. The committee
member asking this question expressly referred to the example of the Pelješac bridge in
Croatia.
Furthermore, Mr
stated that the clarifications in the Guidance on the rules
regarding abnormally low tenders are welcome. He stressed, however, that from the
viewpoint of the BDI, these are not sufficient, and that further measures are necessary to
address the problems arising from the participation of bidders benefiting from foreign
subsidies.
2
Electronically signed on 20/02/2020 15:55 (UTC+01) in accordance with article 4.2 (Validity of electronic documents) of Commission Decision 2004/563