Supervision, cases and decisions in the procurement area

The goal of our procurement supervision is to provide guidance and incentives for changes in behaviour in the areas where this is needed. We strive to ensure a uniform application of the rules. We also provide clarifications when procurement legislation does not clearly specify the framework to which the contracting authorities must hold themselves.

The fundamental purpose of our supervision is to ensure compliance with procurement legislation, and our activities have a clear supervisory focus. Our work with procurement fine cases and supervisory decisions has highlighted the importance of following the rules. We are continuously developing our activities in these areas.

Public procurement is extensive, especially in light of the limited resources we are able to devote to procurement supervision. Our goal is to choose the right cases, ones which allow us to efficiently reach out to those affected by activities. That is why our prioritisation policy is important.

We prioritise cases that we consider to have a major general preventive effect, that can lead to a change in behaviour, or which can have a preventive effect in some other way. Sometimes we determine that there are reasons to prioritise a case in order to highlight a larger issue and provide guidance. 

If we suspect that a violation is due to corruption or other behaviour that undermines public confidence, this is a good argument for prioritising the case. Unauthorised direct procurement is a particularly serious violation of the law and therefore an important area of supervision for us.

Prioritisation policy in the procurement area

Prioritisation policy in the competition area

We see supervision as a continuous preventive activity. If we can prevent a violation from occurring, that is more effective than subsequently finding that a purchase was made incorrectly - especially since many contracting authorities and entities make most of their procurements correctly.

If we identify a violation of procurement law, we can address it through various means, for example by applying for a procurement fine or through a supervisory decision.

Our choice of supervisory method depends on the nature of the case and the issue it raises. Our goal is to achieve the greatest impact in the individual case and for our target groups.

Our sharpest tool is the procurement fine. It is a public fine that contracting authorities or entities may be ordered to pay if they are guilty of certain violations of the procurement laws. In other words, a procurement fine is a kind of fine that accrues to the Swedish state.

We endeavour to drive practices in the courts that can ultimately facilitate the application of the procurement rules in the day-to-day work of awarding officer. Many of our procurement fine cases relate to exceptions in the procurement legislation and the limits that apply to them.

When a contracting authority has made a procurement law error, we can criticise it in a supervisory decision. Through our supervisory decisions, we also guide other undertakings so that they can avoid making the same mistake.

In-depth procurement review is a tool that we use in our broader investigations of an authority’s purchasing activities, when an authority has come to our attention for some reason or another, especially as a result of our analyses and external monitoring. For example, such a review may concern all or part of an authority or a particular type of purchase.

When legal rules and practice do not provide sufficient guidance on how to assess an issue, we endeavour to clarify how we view the issue by writing a position.

Sometimes we find it most effective to conduct a broader review of several contracting authorities and entities. For example, we may address how well-informed authorities are about a particular provision. Depending on our findings, we may raise the issue and provide information about it in a report instead of rendering an individual decision.