Red flags — Local Government Units

How it is determined Computed automatically from the procedure record. Assessed by AIS analysts, because it requires consulting the legislation in force when the procedure was announced.

Terminology harmonised with the Open Contracting Partnership (OCP) and the Open Contracting Data Standard (OCDS).

These indicators identify contracting processes that may warrant further scrutiny of competition, transparency, integrity and contract implementation. A red flag is a risk signal, not, on its own, evidence of wrongdoing or corruption.

Single-bid tender: lack of competition Derived

A contracting process receives only one bid, or only one valid bid, depending on the indicator definition. Limited participation may relate to eligibility requirements, technical specifications, submission deadlines or market conditions. The flag calls for scrutiny of tender documents and the causes of low competition; it does not automatically establish preferential treatment.

Negotiated procedure above the legal threshold Derived

A negotiated procedure above the legal value threshold limits the number of operators able to compete. The assessment should verify the legal grounds, the documented justification and the circumstances supporting the choice of this procedure instead of open competition. Its use is not in itself unlawful.

Negotiation without prior publication Derived

Negotiation without prior publication or direct award may restrict competition. The assessment should distinguish competitive procedures with negotiation from negotiated procedures without publication, and verify the legal grounds, documented justification, notices and circumstances supporting any departure from open competition.

Insufficient bid submission period Assessed

The period between publication or availability of tender documents and the bid submission deadline is shorter than the applicable legal minimum, or unjustifiably insufficient given contract complexity. Short submission periods may deter participation and limit bidders’ ability to prepare competitive offers.

Contract amendment and value increase during implementation Derived

Early or substantial contract modifications, including value increases before the original obligations have been performed, may indicate weak planning or avoidance of competition. Review the justification, legal basis, value and timing of each amendment, as well as its documentation and disclosure. Permitted thresholds depend on applicable law and should not be assumed to be a universal percentage.

Disqualification of competing or lower-priced bids Assessed

Disqualification of all bidders except the winner, or rejection of lower-priced bids, warrants review of bid evaluation. Examine published criteria, reasons for rejection, evaluation records and complaints. The lowest-priced bid is not necessarily the most economically advantageous or a compliant bid.

Repeated cancellation and re-tendering Assessed

Two or more cancellations of procedures covering the same procurement need may signal problems with planning, tender documents or competition. Review the reasons for cancellation, changes across re-tendering rounds and whether the subsequent process used a less competitive method. Repeated cancellation does not automatically justify direct award.

Re-tender cancelled again Derived

The procedure had been re-tendered after a cancellation and was then cancelled again. The sequence calls for verification of the reasons for each cancellation, the changes to tender documents between rounds, and the method used in the subsequent process.

Reference sources

• Open Contracting Partnership — Red Flags in Public Procurement (2024)
• Open Contracting Data Standard — How OCDS works