Decision No D. 243/18/2025 by the Public Procurement Arbitration Board

In its ex officio initiative submitted in relation to the public procurement procedure titled “Provision of event management and event PR support services – Nagydobsza, Abaliget, Istvándi, Töttös, Bükkösd, Nemeske, Molvány, Bezedek – Phases 1 and 2”, conducted by the contracting consortium led by the Municipality of Nagydobsza, the Integrity Authority primarily objected to the infringement of the principle of fair competition by the companies participating in the procedure as tenderers. The initiative also concerned, with regard to the joint contracting authorities, the alleged infringement of the principle of ensuring fair competition, the breach of the rules on conflicts of interest, and the failure to submit a notification to the Hungarian Competition Authority.

The Arbitration Board upheld the ex officio initiative and imposed a fine on the tenderers that had violated the principle of fair competition, as well as on the joint contracting authorities.

In its decision, the Arbitration Board established that the tenderers submitting tenders in the procedure had coordinated their conduct and submitted their tenders in a manner violating the principle of fair competition, thereby facilitating the success of the winning tenderer.

The Arbitration Board found that the joint contracting authorities had failed, following the opening of tenders, to detect that the tender price of the tenderer declared the winner was identical to the estimated value and, in respect of Phase 2, was nearly identical thereto, and that they had not taken any further measures to explore the underlying reasons. The Arbitration Board classified this as a circumstance jeopardising fair competition and held that by failing to take any measures in this regard, the contracting authority had infringed the fundamental principle of ensuring fair competition. Furthermore, taking into consideration that the table breaking down the prices quoted by the tenderers was last saved by a participant involved on the contracting authority’s behalf, it was the contracting authority itself that generated the circumstance undermining fair competition.

The respondents have requested judicial review of the decision.