Assessing a favouritism case

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

In this video we will consolidate a skill: assess warning signs and propose controls addressing identified weaknesses. Use the case to test what you would do in a similar situation. We will explain the proposed response step by step so that you can understand each choice and recognise when more information would be needed. Examples address preventive purchasing controls. Public procurement and private purchasing have different legal frameworks. For public procurement, consider amendment NN 48/2026: general commencement on 16 May 2026, specified provisions on 1 September and the transitional rule for procedures already started.

A case may combine tailored specifications, undeclared conflicts and later changes. Distinguish indications, established facts and possible findings. Correcting the process requires causes to be identified, beyond adding signatures. Suspected breaches require appropriate handling, including reporting and investigation by competent people.

Apply the following rule: The Ombudswoman is the competent external reporting authority and can be approached directly without prior internal reporting. The November 2025 amendment extends the same protection, subject to statutory conditions, to direct reports to the police or State Attorney’s Office within their competence. Where those bodies are informed of retaliation or its risk, they must forward the report to the Ombudswoman without delay. Do not generalise this rule to every direct report to any authority. Public disclosure has separate Article 26 conditions.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Reconstruct the procurement chronology and compare records. Check who set criteria, who evaluated and what changed. Identify relevant relationships and reasons. Target genuinely weak points with proposed measures. Preserve rights and avoid spreading allegations across the team or market. Before moving on, turn this procedure into a sequence you could explain to a colleague. Identify the first check, the action that depends on its outcome and the record that allows the decision to be reconstructed. Follow the sequence on screen and identify the point where an error would change the result.

3. Case Study & Compliance Action

An inadequately justified requirement favours a supplier connected to an evaluator. After award, amendments increase the price. The team separately examines specifications, interests and changes rather than concluding from a combination of suspicions alone. Now read the case carefully. Separate established facts from information you would still need to confirm. Do not add motives or events that have not been described. This distinction matters when choosing a response proportionate to the information available.

The exercise is as follows: What measures can address these three weaknesses without depending on a criminal finding? Choose an answer and write one sentence explaining it. During the pause, compare your choice with the criteria we have just considered. Also think about the material you would retain to explain the decision later.

Independent specification review, declaration and management of interests, and reasoned control over amendments. Adapt these to established weaknesses. Responsibility is assessed through the competent procedure and available evidence.

One mistake to avoid is: proposing only more training where the main problem is control design.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. An advice page is presented as the sole destination for every report. What check is missing?

The recipient's powers and role must be confirmed. Advice, external receipt, investigation and protection may belong to different bodies. Also check the national conditions for the selected route. User information must help people find the correct procedure without requiring steps that do not exist in law.