Transcript TI Integrity Pact Preventing corruption in public procurement Good Practice Germany:

TI Integrity Pact
Preventing corruption
in public procurement
Good Practice Germany:
Airport Berlin
City Hospital - Bremen
Dr. K. Schubert, MPH
Budapest 17.2.2014
TI Integrity Pact
• Public Procurement involves vast sums of money
• Investments by Federal, State and Municipalities
• Complexity and technical nature scare off public
scrutiny
• Invites corruption ( authority and contractors)
• IP concept developed in 1995
TI Integrity Pact
The Concept:
• Contractual Agreement between Owner and
Contractors to forego all forms of corruption
• External independent expert Monitor
• Help to governments and municipalities
TI Integrity Pact
The Objective:
• Make Bidders/Contractors refrain from corruption
• Help Authorities to avoid damage from corruption
• Restore public trust in government
TI Integrity Pact
Structure of IP:
• Pledge of Owner
• Pledge of Bidders/Contractors
• Sanctions
• Monitor (external independent expert)
TI Integrity Pact
Pledge of the Owner/ Authority:
• No employee will accept or demand presents or other
advantages for performing official acts
• Equal information for all bidders
• No confidential information for some bidders
• Disclosure of all real/potential conflicts of interest
• Every suspicion of a criminal act will be investigated
TI Integrity Pact
Pledge of Bidder/Contractor/Sub-Contractor:
•Not to give or offer any gifts or other advantages
•No collusion with other bidders
•No acceptance of advantages for unprofessional
behaviour
•Disclose any payments to agents or middlemen
•Consultants: Assure real competition in selection of
“winner”
TI Integrity Pact
Sanctions:
• Owner to apply internally:
– Disciplinary, criminal, civil and labor law sanctions
on own staff
• Bidder subject to:
– Denial/Loss of Contract
– Forfeiture of bid bonds and similar securities
– Liability to pay damages
– Exclusion from future contracts
TI Integrity Pact
Transparency of Process:
• Broad transparency of all relevant decisions and
process steps
• Evaluation of Bids
• Application of all selection criteria
• Protection only for real business secrets
TI Integrity Pact
• Five Integrity Pacts in Germany –
– all accompanied by monitors
– 2005, 2009, 2010 (2x), 2011
• International Airport Berlin (BBI):
– 2005
– Financial volume: about 5,1 Billion € (2014)
– 1,7 Billion € (2004)
TI Integrity Pact - BBI
• Monitor
– Professor and consultant engineer
– External indipendent expert
– Full-time
– Office on the airport-area
– Continouosly involved in the process
TI Integrity Pact - BBI
Monitor:
•Scrutiny:
– 100 (101) international contract placings - 2 Mio €
(100%)
– 48 (466) national contract placings - 37 Mio € (101
Mio €)
– 35 modifications (1.800) - 68,2 Mio € 200 Mio €
•No corruption – but mismanagement
Project structure Bremen
• Reconstruction of part of a clinical building
– Financial volume: about 250 Mio €
• Owner: Gesundheit Nord gGmbH (federal gov.)
• Bremen: 4 communal hospitals
• Biggest hospital in town
– Since 1850
• Reputation of the hospital
– „Dirty money clinic“ – Schwarzgeldklinik
– Previous corruption experience
Situation in a City State
• Berlin, Hamburg, Bremen - City states
• Short ways
– Everybody knows everybody
– Indipendent of their political background
• Sleaze
– Mutuality
– Gateway for corruption
• Corruption in Public Procurement
IP - Contact person
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Contact to the IP – project
Contact to the monitor
Contact to the owner
Contact to the regional group of TI
Information mediated by the monitor
Conferences / round table with the player
Press releases (Bremen-Berlin)
The Monitor I
• Independent, external Expert(s)
• Representative of Civil Society or professional Expert
• Selection: Owner + TI or public tender
• Unlimited access to all information and meetings
• If violations suspected: first, discuss with Owner
• If no adequate correction: Report to Public Prosecutor
• Paid by Owner
The Monitor II (Bremen)
• Were chosen by TI
• Highly specialized lawyer
• Highly specialized engineer
• Scrutiny:
• International and national contract placings
• Modifications
• No corruption – but mismanagement
Good Experience I
Feed-back: Owner company (GeNo):
1.Security
1. No Loss of money
2. Aggreements be held
3. Control of internal rules
2.Experience of the Monitor
1. Lawyer – construction expert
2. Appearance not announced
3. Many useful preventive advices
3.High preventive dimension
Good Experience II
Feed-back: Construction company
1.Transparent and fair competition
1. No need of bribe
2. No disadvantage between bidders
2.Trustful cooperation
3.Attractive Public Reputation
1. Advantage in further competition
4.Economical benefit
5.Internal Control of public procurement
Thank you
For
Listening