Almost one year after the two-year transition period of the EU directives on public procurement law expired, Austria published a consultation draft of the new Federal Procurement Act 2017 to implement the directives. While Austria took a somewhat conservative approach when implementing the directives, there are some areas where the Austrian draft for the transposition of the directives is significantly stricter than the directives themselves.
The Federal Administrative Court recently addressed whether the party to a winning project in a conflict procedure was entitled to claim rights in the environmental impact assessment for the inferior project. The court ruled that, on the one hand, the legal standing of a party in a conflict procedure is not strictly restricted to that procedure. On the other hand, the court found that being party to a conflict procedure does not guarantee unlimited legal standing in the approval procedure of the other project.
The regulation increasing the Procurement Act's thresholds has been extended for a further two years. Thus, contracting public authorities can continue to benefit from the significantly wider application of the direct award procedure and the so-called 'restricted procedure without prior publication' until 2018. However, contracting authorities should be aware that the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union may still require an ex ante notice for contracts of a certain cross-border interest.
The two-year transition period for implementing the new EU directives on public procurement recently lapsed. While the majority of member states have at least partially implemented the directives, Austria has yet to pass draft legislation transposing any of them. However, despite this, the directives (at least in significant parts) already apply in Austria and individuals can – either directly or indirectly – rely on the majority of the provisions therein.
The Vienna Administrative Court recently ruled on a challenge to a tender conducted by a German centralised purchasing body under German public procurement law. The court concluded that even if the German purchasing body was qualified as a centralised purchasing body, the Austrian complaints mechanism would apply, as the purchasing activities in relation to the Austrian lot were attributable to the Viennese contracting authority.
The Vienna Administrative Court recently ruled on the requirements regarding the level of proof needed to demonstrate grave professional misconduct in relation to public procurement. The court held that a contracting authority need not necessarily wait for a final criminal judgment: if criminal investigations provide grounds for sufficient and precise suspicion, there is no need to wait for an indictment or a court order to institute proceedings.
The Administrative Court of Lower Austria recently confirmed that certain provisions in the new EU directives on public procurement have advance effects. The court ruled that the negotiated procedure set out in the Procurement Act must be interpreted in line with EU Directive 2014/24/EC. Contracting authorities and bidders should thus consider certain mandatory rules and provisions set out in the directives when applying existing regimes.
The government is preparing an amendment to the Federal Procurement Act which will create stricter rules for the award of construction contracts. However, the timing of the amendment is questionable, given that the act will need to be completely revised due to the implementation of three new EU directives, resulting in two procurement law adjustments within only 12 months.