1. Pillar 2: Overall coherence and efficiency of the INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
Contents
1.
Pillar 2: Overall coherence and efficiency of the INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK ........ 1
1.1
State of Play ............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.2
The Way Forward .................................................................................................... 5
1.2.1
Actions: scope and expected impact .................................................................... 5
1.3.
Impact and results indicators ..................................................................................10
1.4.
List of Annexes corresponding to Pillar 2 ...............................................................18
This Pillar contains a main text (Strategy), a table with the specific actions (Action plan) and
annexes. The annexes are complementing documents. They must be read in the light of the
Strategy and Action plan and cannot amend or contradict the actions as set out in the
Strategy and Action plan. Those texts always prevail over the annexes.
Page 1 of 18
1.1 State of play
The current institutional framework is the result of a complex process of organizing the
central functions in public procurement launched in the context of the EU accession process
and continuously evolving in order to adjust to the systemic national developments and to
respond to challenges and requirements to be fulfilled from a broader EU compliance
perspective.
The central functions of the public procurement system are distributed among the following
institutions with key competencies in the field:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
ANRMAP – legislative function; advisory and operational support, ex-ante
verifications at the level of tender documentations, ex-post control, monitoring and
international coordination;
UCVAP – ex-ante control at the level of tender evaluation;
CNSC – non-judiciary, administrative first instance solving complaints lodged against
public procurement procedures;
AADR – e-procurement (e-licitatie platform);
Court of Accounts – audit and control activities;
Competition Council – control activities;
Courts of Appeal – second instance for solving complaints.
With regard to the management of EU funds, in line with the provisions of the applicable
Regulations (1083/2006, 1303/2013, etc.) the managing authorities and the certifying
authority are obliged to certify the eligible expenditure, while the Audit Authority audits the
expenditure declared to the Commission. Subsequently, a distinct system of ex-post control
on public procurement is developed and applied for EU funds. A detailed presentation of the
institutional set-up and the allocation of functions are presented in Annex 1 to Pillar 2.
It is not in the remit of the new public procurement Directives to address the configuration of
the key procurement functions to be performed in the Member States. However, the
directives set the ground for an unprecedented dynamic public procurement environment,
which is considerably growing in complexity. E-procurement, social inclusion, environmental
targets, energy efficiency and innovation are key elements that Romania and the other
Member States, have to integrate in their public procurement policy. This requires an optimal
configuration of the system functions, which takes into account and creates a fertile ground
for these new considerations. It should also contribute to the fight against corruption and the
development of professionalization of contracting authorities.
The current blockages and lack of efficiency in the functioning of the current public
procurement system requires a shift of paradigm and a new model to ensure a strategic
dimension to public procurement and effective interlinks between functions.
Page 2 of 18
An in-depth analysis1 of the current performance of functions has been carried out. The
objectives were to identify the systemic deficiencies of the institutional system and to tackle
the triggers of the problems by identifying alternatives adapted to the Romanian context to
ensure the missing coherence and efficiency of the system.
The main identified features and deficiencies of the institutional framework for the period
2006-2015 are as follows:
1. There is no systemic approach to the public procurement institutional framework to
ensure a dynamic interaction between functions on the basis of a checks and balances
approach. In the current framework, the institutions seem to perform in isolation various
functions of the system, with limited communication or coordination on issues of mutual
interest. There are no initiatives to stimulate an integrated performance of functions
or a cross-fertilisation and harmonization between institutions’ best practices, a
prerequisite for a functional overarching system.
2. There are no indicators on the performance of the public procurement functions and there
is no comprehensive assessment on the functioning of the system in terms of efficiency,
effectiveness or degree of integration of procurement functions.
3. The institutional framework is insufficiently focused on the effective and efficient use
of public funds. Rather than relying on the principles of maximising the capacity of
public spending, the current institutional activities are mainly focused on procedural
compliance aspects, while value for money or efficiency are disregarded.
4. There is a strong focus on compliance, legislation and controls, without considering
essential strategic functions such as policy-making and market monitoring. Moreover,
certain functions are not properly performed due to scarce resources, to the tendency to
support the more “visible” functions and to favor short-term results (e.g. controls) rather
than structural actions with long-term impact (e.g. observing market response). Under
these circumstances, even if some of the important functions of the system are de jure
foreseen in the legislation, however de facto are performed purely formal, with little or
no added value.
5. The strong focus on regulatory functions and control leads to an unbalanced system and
to massive lack of ownership at the level of the contracting authorities. This
tendency is an indicator of the same rigid legality pattern, which has discouraged the use
of public procurement as a tool for development.
6. The lack of inter-institutional cooperation is a major source of conflicting practices and
deficiencies in the system. The Romanian public procurement institutional framework is
largely characterized by inconsistent implementation and interpretation of the complex
and
continuously
changing
publ
1
A significant number of reports, including official documents, have also highlighted deficiencies of the institutional
framework: Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Progress in Romania under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism, COM (2015) 35, January 2015 Council recommendation of 8 July 2014 on the National
Reform Programme 2014 of Romania and delivering a Council opinion on the Convergence Programme of Romania, 2014
(2014/C 247/21); Assessment of the Public Procurement System in Romania, Final Report. Deloitte. August 2011
Page 3 of 18
ic procurement legislation. Such inconsistencies are present both within and among
institutions. Up to present, various protocols of collaboration have been signed but not
enforced.
7. The capacity of the Romanian procurement system to efficiently regulate the
economic activity and market reply has not been developed. The current indicators
used by the authorities are purely statistical without considering substantial market
intelligence that could feed in the policy making focusing on the economic dimension of
the procurement market.
An in-depth analysis has been performed at the level of each function revealing a series
of further deficiencies:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Policy making function is underdeveloped due to a lack of strategic vision of the
procurement policy. The cross-sectorial impact is neither assessed nor promoted
(e.g. energy efficiency and environmental targets, social inclusion, etc.); policy
making and market monitoring functions are not interlinked. Currently policy making is
not performed by any of the central institutions at Governmental level and the coordination of international and intra-EU public procurement is quasi-absent.
There is no efficient central guidance/help-desk. In addition, guidance is often
replaced with opinions for the interpretation of legislation and is not correlated to the
best practices or performance of the other functions (e.g. control).
The current monitoring is limited to sets of statistics such as the number of contract
notices, the types of procedures or contracting authorities, not allowing a
comprehensive description of the market (failures of the market, efficiency and
effectiveness of the public procurement system, degree of competition, rejection rate
of bidders, market size, SMEs penetration, participation of the bidders, statistics on
price estimation). Data are not evaluated/interpreted and cannot be used for the
purposes of real market monitoring.
Ex-ante control on the tender documentation and ex-ante control for tender
evaluation focus on different aspects that are not integrated and do not sufficiently
communicate with each other. There is no mediation mechanism to issue
opinions/interpretations acknowledged by the stakeholders of the system.
a) Ex-ante control of the tender documentation screens exclusively the information
included in the Data Sheet, without considering the scope of work/technical
specifications – mostly qualification and award criteria, spotting neither
discriminatory contractual clauses nor biased or sub-standard technical
specifications. On the other hand, a detailed justification is required to use the
most economically advantageous tender criterion. This approach encourages
contracting authorities to use the lowest price criterion, thus impeding the
development of strategic procurement policies and encouraging the lack of
ownership at the level of contracting authorities;
Page 4 of 18
b) Ex-ante control for tender evaluation does not focus on critical stages of the
procedures and the observations are not always focused on the essential aspects
of the award procedure or on the legality analysis of the decision of the evaluation
committees on the rejected / winning bidders.
v.
In the absence of a common approach, ex-post control is performed by various
institutions when analyzing similar tender documents/procedures. This triggers a
generalized defensive approach of the contracting authorities which take the lowest
risk option in subsequent procedures (i.e. extremely lax qualification criteria,
annulment of procedures, etc.)
vi.
The alleged large number of appeals/complaints2 was perceived by the
administration rather as an abuse of the economic operators than as an indicator of
lack of capacity in the public procurement system. Legislative solutions envisaged
(guarantee for good conduct) were set aside by the Constitutional Court3 and are also
subject to an EU pilot case opened by the European Commission in December 2014.
A balanced legislative solution should be identified in order to address the possibility
to lodge a complaint whenever considered justified during the procedure, without
leading to substantial delays in the process. Moreover, the lack of unitary
interpretation/jurisprudence of the remedy body (National Council for Solving
Complaints - NCSC), the Court of Appeals and between CNSC and the Courts is a
key element impacting on the predictability of the decisions and affecting the entire
system.
The lack of a general supervision function leads to the absence of corrective
measures at the level of the entire system.
vii.
Addressing the above-identified shortcoming requires a set of coherent and focused actions.
1.2 The Way Forward
1.2.1 Actions: scope and expected impact
The core part of the institutional reform requires targeted measures to enhance the future
coherence and efficiency of the institutional framework. Stable and accountable institutions
are paramount in the context of the new public procurement Directives implementation, in
line with the overall Europe 2020 objectives.
2
5739 complaints in 2013; the large number of complains does not necessarily entail an abuse of the economic operators, it is
rather an indicator of the lack of capacity in the public procurement system. In 2014, the total number of complaints decreased
to 3753, mainly following the adoption of GEO 51/2014 and the introduction of a guarantee of good conduct to be established by
any economic operator lodging a complaint related to a public procurement procedure. However, the rate of admittance
remained high (around 35%), showing that the structural causes of the complaints were not efficiently tackled.
3
Decision no. 5/15 January 2015 of the Constitutional Court
Page 5 of 18
Considering the lessons learnt and the identified deficiencies, appropriate remedial
measures are required in order to allow a shift from the pure compliance paradigm towards
an approach capable to “unlock growth”:
A. Reinforcing public procurement policy at central Governmental level
Two of the most important challenges faced by all EU Member States today are to ensure
that public procurement contributes directly to economic growth and jobs and to the efficient
use of public funds. A reformed institutional system is required, considered in a broader
perspective, capable to implement solutions aimed at ensuring:




the long term stability and objectivity of the institutional framework;
a close link with and contribution to the achievement of general governmental policy
objectives;
the efficiency of public spending;
close links between all functions of the system underpinning each other and not
operating in isolation.
Following extensive consultations in the public procurement working group, it has been
agreed that it is important to place the responsibility of public procurement policy making
within an institution familiar with the operational dimension of public procurement and in
direct contact with the realities on the field. Consequently, following also the recommendation
of the European Commission, the National Authority for Public Procurement (ANAP) was set
up by the Romanian Government by merging UCVAP and ANRMAP under the authority of
the Ministry of Public Finance4, as the main institution overseeing public investment
management and ensuring quality of public spending.
Considering the overall responsibility of the Ministry of Public Finance to ensure the
transparency and accountability of public funds spending and also its active role in the
management of public investment reinforced by the Emergency Governmental Ordinance no.
88/2013, the new system will aim at ensuring a proper correlation between the activity of
management, allocation of public funds and their spending throughout the entire investment
cycle, in a comprehensive and overarching approach. Moreover, the aim is to ensure that the
ex-ante control shall be applied in a unitary manner, while the functions shall be inter-linked
in order to ensure a coherent system and a policy-making mechanism adapted to the reality
on the field.
The responsibilities of the newly created institution are: policy and law making, guidance,
help-desk and operational support, ex-ante control, monitoring and supervision of the public
procurement system. The detailed performance of functions shall be developed in a
4
Emergency Governmental Ordinance no. 13/2015, published in the Official Gazette no. 362/26th of May 2015.
Page 6 of 18
subsequent Governmental Decision5, in full compliance with the outcome of the discussions
in the public procurement working group and the current strategy.
B. Ensuring checks and balances and cross-sectorial approach in promoting public
procurement policy
The connection between strategic and operational level as well as the validation of policies at
Government level should be secured and strengthened by the Inter-Ministerial Committee
for Public Procurement grouping (on basis of the existing committee6) the main public
procurement relevant institutions (ANAP, CNSC, AADR), ministries (Ministry of Finance,
Ministry of Economy, Ministry of European Funds, Ministry of Development, Ministry of
Economy) and control bodies (Court of Accounts, Competition Council, National Agency for
Integrity).
The Committee shall convene on a regular basis (every 3 months), ensuring the overall
coherence of the public procurement system and providing strategic guidance to the
development of functions, policies, etc. in direct connection with the market environment,
based on regular consultations of external stakeholders and civil society.
The Inter-Ministerial Committee for Public Procurement is designed to act as a checks &
balances mechanism built into the policy making function in order to provide independent
policy review and ensure strategic guidance of the procurement system.
C. Enforcing a mechanism for inter-institutional co-operation
A mechanism for inter-institutional co-operation has been established in order to ensure
systemic coordination meetings between the main public procurement actors (ANRMAP,
UCVAP, CNSC, CSM, CCR, AA and MFE).
The preliminary phase implies constant prescreening of the issues leading to different
interpretations of the relevant PP institutions. The agenda of the meetings is agreed on the
basis of the differences of interpretation identified and reported to all actors involved. During
the meetings, the conflicting interpretations are jointly assessed and the institutions decide
on a common final approach. In case differences of opinion persist and there is not a
common understanding reached, the final responsibility to issue the final interpretation
belongs to ANAP.
The cooperation results either in issuing guidance to be published on ANAP web site or, in
duly justified cases, tertiary legislation to be published in the Official Gazette. The guidance
and the tertiary legislation shall serve as reference for all the stakeholders that are part of the
5
In compliance with art. 1 (3) and art. 5(4) of EGO no.13/2015 ANAP shall function once the subsequent Governmental
Decision enters into force.
6
Prime-Minister Decision no 218/2014 to set up an Inter-ministerial committee for the elaboration of the
National Strategy for Public Procurement.
Page 7 of 18
mechanism for inter-institutional co-operation. They will be integrated in the web-based
guidelines (see pillar 1)
A detailed description of the mechanism is outlined in Annex 2 to Pillar 2.
D. Reforming and reinforcing public procurement central functions
The public procurement working group carried out an extensive analysis of the public
procurement functions current level of performance. The group also defined a complex set of
actions for improvement to be implemented by the end of 2016 as part of the Strategy, as
follows:
i.
The helpdesk function will be developed on basis of the current pilot project
dedicated to EU funded projects and will be rolled out also to national funding. The
system will secure a single inquiry point, appropriate level of access, userfriendliness, reliable information and protection against unauthorized access. A
common approach in replying to the requests should be ensured, regular update of
know-how and good practices. The issues to be advertised online will be subject to a
constant screening, prioritization and adjusted to the real needs of the CAs. The
helpdesk output will also be adjusted to the CNSC, ANRMAP or courts case-law and
will ensure cross-links with the future web-based guideline (operational support).
Annex 3 to Pillar 2 describes in detail how the new help-desk function will be
extended to national funds.
ii.
Operational support will be provided by the development of web-based guidelines,
which shall include standard bidding documents for key sectors. Based on the current
experience, standard documents shall be mandatory as a whole, partially or
facultative. Web-based guideline project is outlined in Annex 5 to Pillar 1.
iii.
A set of complex measures to reinforce and ensure efficiency of the control system
as well as prevention of conflict of interest will be taken. The detailed presentation of
the current situation and main actions envisaged is part of Pillar 3 of the Strategy.
iv.
The current remedies system will be improved by a set of systemic complementary
measures aimed at ensuring consistent case law and predictability of decisions.
Measures will be designed to prevent the abusive use of administrative and judicial
complaints, while observing economic operators’ right to lodge complaints.
In practice, prior notification of the Contracting Authority will be made compulsory,
providing the opportunity to CAs to take adequate corrective measures prior to a
formal complaint being lodged. The notification will have to be made within the
Page 8 of 18
minimum deadlines required by the Remedies directive for applying for review (art. 2c
of Directive 89/665/EEC). The contracting authority will have to answer any
notification within a timeframe allowing both for investigation and speediness (a
timeframe of approximately 10 days is envisaged). Applications for review can only be
lodged following the answer of the contracting authority or a failure to answer within
the deadline. The deadlines for complaints start only after the notification procedure.
The treatment of complaints will be restricted to specific of stages in order to prevent
a multiple “stop and go” process, detrimental to the procedure7. It will be decided
whether the same is to be applied to the notification of the contracting authority.
Notifications to the contracting authority and applications for review to CNSC will be
free of fees or other costs, or any additional and specific guarantee to be provided by
the applicant.
At the level of the Courts of Appeal specialized panels for public procurement will be
created, as will be foreseen in the legislation for transposing remedies. . The training
of the judges will be ensured.
In order to ensure predictability and a result-oriented system, in cases of reevaluation, CNSC / Court decisions will include clear reference to how such
reevaluation should be performed by indicating precisely what should be performed
differently as against the initial evaluation.
Internal mechanisms have already been developed at CNSC level by President Order
no 32/09.04.2015 aimed at ensuring consistency of interpretation between panels. A
better structuring of CNSC web-database shall significantly contribute to the visibility
and coherence of jurisprudence.
Mechanisms to facilitate a common approach of CNSC and the courts will be
established. Specialized panels for public procurement will be set-up and the new
legislation for transposition of remedies Directive shall include this specific
requirement. Training of the judges for specialization in public procurement will also
be a key priority action.
v.
7
An effective monitoring function shall be set up on basis of key performance
indicators that will provide information on market size, intensity of competition or
potential irregular behaviour. The detailed presentation of the current situation and
main actions envisaged is part of Pillar 5 of the Strategy.
The current deadline is 10 days from the moment when the operator is aware of an act of the contracting authority
Page 9 of 18
iv.
Supervision of the public procurement system will be performed by ANAP to ensure
that contracting authorities act in line with the legal framework in force during all
phases of the procedure. Supervision will rely on the monitoring function, on the exante and ex-post activities revealing in real time systemic problems or irregularities.
When systemic dysfunctions are revealed using various red-flags8 (e.g. for corruption,
bad performance, unlawful final acceptance of the works or other irregularities),
ANAP will define the nature of the problem and refer it to the competent authorities
for corrective actions. In order to achieve that, the existing protocols (e.g. with the
Anti-fraud Department, Competition Council and National Integrity Agency) will be
reinforced and extended to ensure the system reacts when irregularities or
dysfunctions are identified.
1.3 . Impact and results indicators
The monitoring mechanism described under the chapter “Risks, governance and
performance monitoring” is directly applicable for the monitoring of indicators and expected
results described under this headline.
With regard to the institutional pillar, the following indicators of impact are envisaged:
8
Red-flags indicators are further defined within Chapter 5 of the Strategy.
Page 10 of 18
Summary of proposed actions, lead and contributing institutions, completion timescales and planned impacts
Identified
Proposed Action
issue/trigger for the
action
Lead
Contributors
KPI
Deadline
Source
of Planned Impacts
Information
A. Reinforcing public procurement policy at central Governmental level
Adoption
of
the MPF
Governmental Decision for
the functioning of ANAP,
including the organisational
chart
Main
stakeholders
Functions set up in July 2015
compliance with the
National Strategy for
Public Procurement
Strategic dimension of
the
institutional
framework has to be
ensured
Policy making function
Setting up ANAP
is underdeveloped
New premises
Sufficient human resources
MPF
Fully
structure
Official
Gazette
Ensured long term
stability
and
objectivity of the
institutional
framework;
ensured efficiency
of public spending
and
interfunctionality of the
functions
operational
October
2015
July 2016
Page 11 of 18
Identified
Proposed Action
issue/trigger for the
action
Lead
Contributors
KPI
Adequate payment level
Set up of the Department for ANAP
Public Procurement Policy
within the National Agency
for Public Procurement
Adoption of clear, coherent ANAP
and
visible
methodology/procedures to
formulate and promote the
policy in public procurement
Deadline
Source
of Planned Impacts
Information
December
2015
(Law
for approval
EGO 13 /
2015)
MFP
Mechanisms put in September
place
to
ensure 2015
efficient
policy
making,
interlinked
with the other key
functions in public
procurement
ROF - Internal
terms
of
Reference for
ANAP
organization
and
functioning
Enhanced quality,
efficiency
and
responsibility
in
promoting public
procurement policy
Regular assessment October
reports of the policy
2015
Reports,
Internal terms
of Reference
for
ANAP
organization
and
functioning
Implementation of
the policy function;
Ensured strategic
vision
of
the
procurement
policy;
ensured
cross-sectorial
impact
assessment
Adjustments
performed
to
the
policy
initially
formulated
B. Ensuring checks and balances and cross-sectorial approach in promoting public procurement policy
Page 12 of 18
Identified
Proposed Action
issue/trigger for the
action
Lead
Adoption of the Prime MPF
Minister Decision to set up
Public
procurement
the
Inter-Ministerial
policy aligned to growth
Committee
for
Public
objectives
Procurement
No systemic approach
Adoption of the working MPF
to
the
public
methodology
(terms
of
procurement
reference) of the Interinstitutional framework
Ministerial Committee for
Public Procurement
Contributors
KPI
Main
stakeholders
Proposals
and August 2015
decisions
for
the
elaboration,
adjustment
and/or
implementation
of
policy
August 2015
ANAP site
No.
of July 2015
guidelines/instructions
issued
on
the
interpretation
of
particular
elements
that
have
been
previously subject of
different approaches
ANAP site
Main
stakeholders
Deadline
Source
of Planned Impacts
Information
Ensured strategicoriented approach
in policy promotion
ANAP site
C. Enforcing a mechanism for inter-institutional co-operation
Signature of the Protocol ANRMAP
setting up the mechanism
High
number
of
for inter-institutional coinconsistent
operation
interpretations affecting
the activity of the Adoption of the working ANRMAP
contracting authorities
methodology and agenda
for the next meetings
All
stakeholders
All
stakeholders
Official
Gazette/ANAP
site
Ensured
clarity
and predictability
at the level of the
contracting
authorities;
increased
cooperation
between main PP
Page 13 of 18
Identified
Proposed Action
issue/trigger for the
action
Lead
Contributors
KPI
Deadline
Source
of Planned Impacts
Information
institutions;
ensured
unitary
approach
D. Reforming and reinforcing help-desk function within the public procurement system
Need
efficient
function
to
ensure Extend the help desk to ANAP
help-desk national funds and ensure
interconnectivity with the
operational departments
No
of
requests August 2015
registered
and
answered,
both
regarding EU and
national funds
ANAP site
Ensured focus on
substance
and
less
on
legal
compliance
Feedback
from
users/surveys on the
quality/clarity of the
help desk answers to
requests
Integrate help-desk
web-based guidelines
with ANAP
Integrated solutions to September
requests registered in 2016
the system
Increased capacity
at the level of
contracting
authorities
ANAP site
Ensured access to
direct guidance on
specific issues
Page 14 of 18
Identified
Proposed Action
issue/trigger for the
action
Lead
Contributors
KPI
Deadline
All
stakeholders
Adoption
of
the February
necessary legislative 2016
measures
in
accordance with the
strategy.
(remedy
law)
Source
of Planned Impacts
Information
E. Ensure an improved and efficient remedies system
New remedies system in CNSC
place with CNSC as first
instance (free of charge)
and Court of Appeals as
higher instance as detailed
under point D.iv. above
Ensure compliance of
national
public
procurement
system
with Directive 66/2007
Repealing
51/2014
Reports
efficiency
system
Increased efficiency of the ANAP
new
system
due
to
mandatory prior notification
to Contracting Authorities
and clear identification of the
stages
for
lodging
/
assessing complaints as
detailed under point D.iv
All
stakeholders
Official
Gazette
Ensure
stability
and competence
in the remedies
system
Official
Gazette
Encourage early
remedies due to
mandatory
prior
notification system
GEO
on
of
the
the
Adoption
of
the February
necessary legislative 2016
measures
in
accordance with the
strategy, point D.iv
(remedy law)
Reduction
of
the
number of review
Streamline
the
process of lodging
complaints
Page 15 of 18
Identified
Proposed Action
issue/trigger for the
action
Lead
Contributors
above
KPI
Lack
of
unitary
interpretation/jurisprude
nce
within
NCSC,
within the Court of
Appeals and between
NCSC and the Courts
All
stakeholders
Set
up
the
internal CNSC
mechanism for increasing
predictability at the level of
CNSC
Develop CNSC database CNSC
(Decisions) to ensure a
user-friendly
access
to
CNSC case law
Set – up Quarterly meetings CNSC
CNSC- Court of Appeals/
Source
of Planned Impacts
Information
procedures
and/or
reduction of rate of
success
Reduced delays
the awards
Clarifying the situation of ANAP
GEO no 51/2014 related to
the guarantee of good
conduct (approving the law
for repealing of GEO 51 /
2014 by the Parliament)
Deadline
in
Repealing legislative September
act adopted
2015
Official
Gazette
Remove potential
barriers
from
access
to
remedies system
No.
of
divergent July 2015
interpretations
from
CNSC panels on
similar matters
CNSC site
Ensured
clarity
and predictability
at the level of the
contracting
authorities;
December
2015
Court
Appeals/
No.
of
divergent
interpretations on the
of
February
same matter
2016
CNSC site
CNSC site
Increased
coherence
in
interpretations
between
CNSC
and
Court
of
Page 16 of 18
Identified
Proposed Action
issue/trigger for the
action
Superior
Magistracy
Council
Lead
of
Contributors
KPI
Deadline
Source
of Planned Impacts
Information
Superior
Council
of
Magistracy
Appeals
Establish specialized panels CSM
for
public
procurement
(courts of appeals)
CNSC, MJ
February
Official
2016
gazette
(transposition
of law for
remedies)
Protocol for training for the CSM
judges in the specialized
courts
ANAP
March 2016
Training sessions
ANAP
December
2016
CSM
Ensured
unitary
interpretation and
increased
efficiency at the
level of Courts of
Appeal
Page 17 of 18
1.4 . List of Annexes corresponding to Pillar 2
Annex 1
Actual institutional framework in public Procurement in Romania (corresponding
to annex 3 in RO version)
(These annexes are working documents and are not designed for public disclosure)
Annex 2
Mechanism for inter-institutional co-operation
Annex 3
Development of the help desk
Page 18 of 18