How we prioritise procurement supervision
We have a responsibility to use our resources as efficiently as possible. That is why we need to prioritise between our various procurement supervision cases. We focus on investigating issues that are of a general interest and that lead to clear results.
On this page you can see how we prioritise our procurement supervision efforts. We have a prioritisation policy that is used in the initial prioritisation when we select which issues to investigate further. Various circumstances are then weighed against each other. Not all the factors that we consider in the prioritisation process must be fulfilled; this is evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Continuous assessment
Although the prioritisation policy is initially applied, throughout the investigation we also continuously assess whether the investigation of the case should continue. Available resources and the number and scope of other ongoing investigations may influence our need for prioritisation. There may be several reasons why the Swedish Competition Authority closes investigations at a later stage without action, but it is not the prioritisation policy we rely on then.
Promote effective public procurement
We focus on investigating issues that are of a general interest and that lead to clear results. The aim is always to promote effective public procurement for the benefit of public and market actors.
The prioritisation policy serves not only to prioritise among tip-offs and complaints received by the Swedish Competition Authority. The policy also serves to identify the most serious indications among the signs we observe in the market. Tip-offs received are important, but we have multiple tools for identifying infringements also without the help of outside informants. We use media monitoring, but may also find suspected infringements through statistics on public procurements and other open sources.
Factors that we weigh into the prioritisation
The Swedish Competition Authority prioritises matters that we assess will have a deterrent effect, lead to changed behaviour or have a preventive effect in some other way. Sometimes, we believe there is reason to prioritise a matter to cast light on a larger issue, provide guidance and create legal precedent.
Illegal direct awards of contract are among the most serious infringements in the public procurement area and the Swedish Competition Authority therefore focuses on these. Infringements of rules that may be particularly restrictive for competition if they are not observed are also central to our prioritisation. These include rules on transparency and other infringements of the public procurement law principles.
In prioritising procurement supervision efforts, we consider the following factors:
We consider whether our supervision may be expected to have a significant deterrent effect and if there is a need for guidance among a larger group of actors. This means that an issue may be prioritised where our supervision can be expected to prevent several contracting authorities or entities from infringing upon the rules, and where we, through our supervision, can clarify how to act correctly.
There may be a need for guidance if an infringement is considered to be commonly occurring. Guidance may also be needed where the legal position is unclear or where rules have not had the effect that the legislator intended. We often see shortcomings in planning, governance and organisation in the purchasing work of contracting authorities or entities, which leads to infringements due to time constraints or a lack of knowledge.
We take into consideration shortcomings that have come to light in the conduct of the contracting authority or entity. Poor routines or shortcomings with respect to competence, as well as inadequate or unstructured documentation, can often lead to infringements. Intentional or repeated infringements are generally regarded as shortcomings of a serious nature. In some cases, we may choose to delay an intervention on our part in order to see the effects of past supervision measures aimed at a certain entity.
Corruption, conflicts of interest and other actions that are criminal or may undermine public trust are harmful to competition and consumers. Such actions also have the capacity to facilitate and aggravate infringements of the procurement rules. We therefore give particular consideration to suspicions of corruption when we prioritising the tip-offs we receive, or when a certain issue is highlighted in our media monitoring.
We may entirely refrain from acting in cases where it is deemed that another agency or actor is better placed to intervene. For instance, there may be a possibility to have the matter tried in court or there may be ongoing or recently concluded court proceedings.
We takes into account the resources which might be required and our prospects of investigating the case effectively, relative to the suspected infringement or the need for guidance.