Assessing a favouritism case

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

In this video we will consolidate a skill: combine relationship, document and decision analysis. 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. Distinguish general purchasing controls from statutory public procurement. Latvian procurement law requires openness, competition, equal treatment and effective use of resources. Examples impose no identical procedure or threshold on every purchase.

Concerns may combine relationships, specifications and unusual decisions. One fact does not prove every allegation. Assess supporting and contrary material. Reporting protection depends on statutory features, not just the word procurement.

Apply the following rule: Reports can go to competent authorities or through the contact point and specified organisations. Since 1 March 2026 KNAB is the contact point. It advises, refers, supervises compliance and examines cases where no competent institution can be determined. It does not replace every sector authority’s powers. Internal reporting is encouraged only under section 5(4); public disclosure has separate section 4 conditions.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Prepare chronology and questions. Separate selection legality and personal guilt. Arrange independent handling and lawful preservation. Correct control weaknesses even if corruption is unproven. 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

The winner knows the decision-maker, but bids still need substantive comparison. Review finds an undisclosed interest and checks whether criteria were tailored. 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: Does acquaintance alone prove unlawful selection? 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.

No. It may require conflict handling and further checks. Findings need evidence about the decision and applicable rule.

One mistake to avoid is: using a relationship instead of all other evidence.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. The team treats KNAB as the only investigator for every sector. What needs clarification?

KNAB has performed contact-point functions since March 2026, but the competent institution examines the particular breach. The contact point helps identify it and also examines statutory cases where competence cannot be determined. Check the current official route. A private software provider does not become a competent public authority.