Annual Report of the Procurement Complaints Activity and the Procurement Complaints Committee of the European Investment Bank 2024

1. Introduction

This report was prepared by the Secretariat of the Procurement Complaints Committee (PCC or “the Committee”) of the European Investment Bank (EIB or “the Bank”). It provides an overview of the procurement complaints that were received and handled by the EIB over the course of 2024 and outlines the work of the Committee and its Secretariat. This is the sixth annual report to have been compiled and published on the Committee’s activity since it was set up in late 2018. ^[1]

In line with good practices followed by other international financial institutions, when project-related procurement complaints are submitted to the EIB, they are handled by the PCC. The PCC is a specialised, independent and impartial committee mandated to handle procurement complaints that challenge the Bank’s decisions on project procurement procedures for EIB-financed projects outside the European Union. This system ensures that project procurement complaints regarding EIB-financed projects are handled effectively and independently. If a complainant is not satisfied with the Bank’s outcome or response, they are entitled to escalate their complaint to the European Ombudsman alleging maladministration by the Bank.

[1] The Procurement Complaints Committee Annual Report 2023 is available here.

2. Brief overview of the EIB’s procurement complaints system

PCC’s remit, work and composition

The Procurement Complaints Committee is an independent Bank committee with four voting and two non-voting members, consisting of senior representatives of different directorates of the Bank.

It is chaired by the EIB’s Inspector General and assisted by a Secretariat. The chairperson decides upon the admissibility of procurement complaints, is in charge of directing and facilitating the work of the Committee, and oversees the Secretariat.

Promoters of projects that are financed by the EIB are required to follow the Bank’s Guide to Procurement (March 2024). This guide also sets out the EIB’s processes for handling procurement complaints. Promoters are fully responsible for implementing projects financed by the Bank, and in particular for all aspects of the procurement process, from drafting tender documents to awarding and implementing contracts. The Bank’s involvement is confined solely to verifying whether or not the conditions attached to its financing are being met.

For projects in the European Union that are financed by the Bank, the relevant national remedy mechanisms provide appropriate safeguards. This is done through the transposition of EU procurement law by EU Member States, in particular the Remedies Directives, which set minimum national review standards.

For projects financed by the Bank in non-EU countries ^[2], the Bank uses a “non-objection” mechanism for approving procurement methods and outcomes. An important feature of the procurement complaints system is that the Bank requires its promoters to observe a standstill period, which is the intervening period of time between the decision to issue a non-objection to the award of a procurement contract and the signature of the contract.

Complainants may call into question a decision taken by the Bank (usually, but not limited to, a non-objection given by the Bank) for project procurement procedures financed under an EIB project. The Committee may decide to either confirm or withdraw the non-objection already issued by the Bank. If it decides to withdraw the non-objection, it may also recommend that the relevant project component be excluded from the Bank’s financing and/or that any other contractual remedies be undertaken.

Complainants lodging procurement complaints may be “any party having or having had an interest in obtaining a particular contract and who has been or risks being harmed by an alleged infringement of the EIB’s Guide to Procurement.” ^[3]

[2] In countries outside the European Union, the Bank requires that the main mechanisms of the EU directives on procurement be followed with the necessary procedural adaptations (Section 1.1 of the Guide to Procurement for projects financed by the EIB, March 2024).

[3] Id. at Annex 7.

3. PCC complaints received in 2024

Taxonomy of admissible procurement complaints and corresponding processes

As described in the Guide to Procurement, procurement complaints that challenge the Bank’s decision on project procurement procedures under an EIB-financed project are classified and handled as follows:

Procurement complaints lodged prior to the Bank’s decision (objection or non-objection)

Complaints lodged prior to the Bank’s decision are redirected by the PCC’s Secretariat to the Bank’s services in charge of the respective projects for further follow-up. The substance of such complaints is considered when the Bank decides on the non-objection to the contract award.

Procurement complaints lodged after the Bank’s non-objection to contract award and prior to the signature of contracts

Complaints submitted after the Bank has issued its non-objection to the contract award and during the standstill period are reviewed by the Committee, which examines the case to enable the Bank to take a final position on whether to confirm or withdraw the non-objection issued by the Bank. The submission of this type of complaint triggers the suspension of the Bank’s non-objection until the Committee has completed its review. Considering that the Bank is not a party to the procurement contract, it can only take decisions concerning the financing it provides to a given project or project component.

Procurement complaints lodged following the Bank’s non-objection to contract award and after the signature of contracts

For complaints received after the standstill period has expired and the respective procurement contracts have been signed, the Committee can no longer redress the procurement procedure. However, it examines such admissible complaints to decide whether the Bank should confirm or withdraw its financing of the contract.

According to the Guide to Procurement, the Bank’s decision is taken in less than 30 calendar days from the submission of the complaint. In complex cases, this deadline may be extended up to 60 calendar days.

In 2024, the Committee received 21 procurement complaints. Of these complaints, 12 were submitted prior to the Bank’s decision/non-objection and hence redirected by the PCC Secretariat to the Bank’s services that are responsible for the relevant projects for further follow-up, as per the Guide to Procurement.

The remaining nine procurement complaints were submitted to the PCC following the Bank’s non-objection to contract award and were accordingly reviewed and decided upon by the PCC. The Committee voted to uphold the Bank’s non-objection for eight of the complaints and to withdraw the Bank’s non-objection in one case.

More details on all 21 procurement complaints are provided in the table below and in the following section.

i. PCC complaints by nature of allegation (Table 1)

Procurement complaints lodged prior to the Bank’s decision
Complaint reference	Country of project concerned	Nature of allegations
PCC/2024/02	The Gambia	Unjustified disqualification (due to an allegedly invalid tender security)
PCC/2024/03	Benin	Refusal of deadline extension for tenders’ submission
PCC/2024/05	Djibouti	Complainant discouraged/prevented from submitting a tender
PCC/2024/06	Nepal	Flaws in the financial offer of the winning tender warranting its rejection
PCC/2024/08	Zambia	Unexpectedly low scores assigned to a responsive tender; request for clarification not granted
PCC/2024/11	Nepal	Tender not selected despite offering best price and meeting the criteria / fulfilling conditions for award
PCC/2024/14	Ukraine	Request for changes because the procurement documents introduce an unfair advantage
PCC/2024/15	India	Restrictive conditions that limit international competition
PCC/2024/17	Ukraine	Technical specifications of the procurement documents targeting a specific manufacturer and limiting international competition
PCC/2024/18	Egypt	Technical specifications of the procurement documents non-compliant with sections of the EIB Guide to Procurement; lack of clarification provided by the promoter
PCC/2024/19	Ukraine	Long, ultimately fruitless evaluation; procedure repeated with virtually the same technical specifications; delays causing an increase in the cost of production for the manufacturer
PCC/2024/20	Tunisia	Lack of clarification, which might have prevented an objective evaluation of the tender

Procurement complaints lodged after the Bank’s non-objection to contract award

Complaint reference

Country of project concerned

Nature of allegations

PCC/2024/01	Ukraine	Compliance of the buses tendered by the complainant with mandatory technical requirements
PCC/2024/04	Lesotho	Abnormally low tender; inconsistency of the winning tender; debriefing requested from the promoter
PCC/2024/07	Ukraine	Issues regarding past performance in the complainant’s tender; preference for domestic products
PCC/2024/09	Ukraine	Evaluation of the minimum level of experience/past performance in the complainant’s tender
PCC/2024/10	Egypt	Winning tenderer’s failure to submit the required security and sign the procurement contract
PCC/2024/12	Kosovo[4]	Rejection of the complainant’s tender based on a minor/non-material submission deviation which should be waived
PCC/2024/13	Benin	Procurement documents requirement (related to the indebtedness of tenderers) should not be eliminatory (not an appropriate criterion for this procurement)
PCC/2024/16	Montenegro	Evaluation regarding certain aspects of the required technical experience and corresponding means of proof
PCC/2024/21	Benin	Restrictive technical specifications; non-admission of alternative equivalent technical solutions

[4] This designation is without prejudice to positions on status and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence.

4. Observations

i. PCC complaints by sector

The following table gives a breakdown of the 21 procurement complaints that were received, by project sector:

ii. PCC complaints by region of operation

The following table gives a breakdown of the 21 procurement complaints that were received, by region of operation:

The Bank received a total number of 21 complaints in 2024, an increase from the two previous years (15 in 2023 and 18 in 2022).

As illustrated in Table 1 above, 12 of the 21 procurement complaints were submitted prior to the Bank’s decision (non-objection) and nine were submitted following the Bank’s non-objection to contract award and accordingly reviewed and decided upon by the PCC. This is a notable increase in terms of both the number and share of complaints reviewed compared to previous years (3 out of 15 complaints submitted in 2023 and 5 out of 18 in 2022). This shift may indicate that complainants are now more acquainted with the PCC – which has now been operating for six full years – and time the submission of their complaints with the aim of triggering the PCC’s review. However, it is too early to derive steady conclusions and it remains to be seen if this pattern continues.

In terms of sectors, most complaints continue to concern projects related to transport and storage, followed by water supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation activities. The breakdown of procurement complaints by sector does not raise concerns for any particular sector.

In terms of regions of operation, most procurement complaints concerned projects in sub-Saharan Africa (7 complaints) and the Enlargement Countries (also 7 complaints).

In terms of subject matter, no specific issue stood out. However, the most common allegations were related to restrictive conditions and technical requirements that narrow down the competition.

Of the nine complaints submitted to the Committee following the Bank’s non-objection to contract award, three of the complainants were based in the countries where the projects were located.

The response time for the nine procurement complaints that were lodged after the Bank’s non-objection to contract award and prior to the signature of contracts ranged from 60 to 83 days, with an average of 72 days. This is above the time limits prescribed by the Bank’s policy (Annex 7 to the Guide to Procurement for projects financed by the EIB provides for 30 days, with the possibility of that period being extended to 60 days). The longer review processes reflect the complexity of certain complaints, the larger share of admissible complaints that were submitted, and the concentration of several reviews during the final quarter of 2024, which slowed down review processes.

The PCC Secretariat always informs complainants that they are entitled to escalate their complaint to the European Ombudsman alleging maladministration by the Bank if they are not satisfied with the Bank’s response. One complaint from 2024 was escalated to the Ombudsman and is currently under assessment.

Most complaints were submitted via the dedicated mailbox (procurementcomplaints@eib.org). The Committee’s webpage appears to have improved awareness of this email address as the main entry point for potential procurement complainants. The Committee’s privacy statement, which provides information on how it handles personal data in its activities, is also available on its website. This statement was developed in close cooperation with the Bank’s Data Protection Officer.

As in previous years, the PCC Secretariat received emails that were not necessarily related to project procurement at the EIB but may present issues that fall within the mandates of the Inspectorate General’s Investigations Division (IG/IN) or the Complaints Mechanism (IG/CM). The Secretariat’s position within the Inspectorate General facilitates communication, cooperation, and the transfer of complaints to the Investigations Division concerning allegations of prohibited conduct, and to the Complaints Mechanism for complaints that are unrelated to procurement.

Building on lessons learned, the PCC Secretariat also continuously revisits the Committee’s internal process to ensure that all procurement complaints are administered in an efficient manner throughout the process life cycle, and that complainants receive timely answers from the PCC. This initiative aims to bring processing times closer to the policy time limits (30-60 days). The Secretariat also monitors whether the relevant EIB services take the necessary follow-up action in the case of procurement complaints lodged prior to the Bank’s decision.

5. Outlook for 2024

For 2025, the PCC Secretariat will fully revisit its internal procedures with a view to further improving the Committee’s way of working. Lessons learned in 2024 could help improve the overall process in terms of time management, while maintaining high review standards.

The Secretariat will continue to work with the Bank’s Data Protection Officer to ensure that the work of the Committee and the Secretariat remains compliant withthe applicable data protection rules, taking into account any developments in the legal framework.

April 2025