Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
TENDER-X INTEGRITY RISK REPORT
19 Aug 2021 1
Construction
company Czech Republic
1. Tender-X risk score
The Tender-X integrity risk score of Construction
company is 55, around the average of the
benchmark companies’ risk level (Figure 1). For
the benchmark group, we selected comparable
Czech public contracts that are from those
product markets where the Construction
company is active at – such as road construction
or road repairs – and similar in size too.
Furthermore, we disregarded contracts
awarded to small companies, that won less than
3 contracts. In total we identified 35,930
benchmark contracts between 2011 and 2020,
that were awarded to 1,597 suppliers.
Figure 1 shows the distribution of the 1,597
companies and the Construction company
according to their average Tender-X score. All
figures in this report with a benchmark group
present the average risks of these benchmark
contracts compared to Construction company.
See more details on data and benchmarking in
the Notes.
Individual integrity risk indicators
Construction company scores higher than
average according to two of five individual
integrity risk indicators: it won a particularly high
share of single-bidder tenders and tenders with
a closed procedure type. For example, 29% of its
contracts were single-bidding which is almost
double the market average of 15%.
However, Construction company scores equal or
lower risk than the benchmark in terms of
winning contracts with missing call for tender
publication, short notice or expedited bid result
risks (Figure 2). See more details on the
definitions of risk indicators in the Notes.
Figure 1: Construction company’s Tender-X integrity risk score
compared to benchmark companies
(0: low risk, 100: high risk)
Figure 2: Individual Tender-X integrity risk indicator
Contents
1 Tender-X risk score 1
2 Integrity risk profile 2
3 Public procurement profile 6
4 Notes 7
TENDER-X INTEGRITY RISK REPORT
19 Aug 2021 2
2. Integrity risk profile
Tender-X integrity risk score over time
Construction company’s Tender-X integrity risk score was higher compared to the benchmark group in
2009-2016 and 2019, suggesting integrity risks became relatively lower in recent years (Figure 3).
Construction company has only 3 contracts for 2019, while it won 60-140 contracts per year before.
Overall, Construction company had an average Tender-X integrity risk score of 55 which means that more
than half of the elementary risk indicators flagged some contract level risks on average between 2006
and 2019.
Figure 3: Tender-X integrity risk score by year
Individual risk indicator analysis
The share of single-bidder contracts won by Construction company was roughly 15-25 percentage points
higher than the benchmark between 2009 and 2016.1 However, this share decreased significantly in
2017-2018. For example, none of the 60 contracts won by Construction company in 2018 was a single-
bidder contract.
Figure 4: Average share of single-bidder contracts by year
1 We have data for 822 contracts won by Construction company between 2009-2016 with known single-bidding information. There
are only 3 contracts won in 2019.
TENDER-X INTEGRITY RISK REPORT
19 Aug 2021 3
The difference in the share of contracts won by closed procedures was less significant: in most years
Construction company’s share was 1-6 percentage points higher than the benchmark. It only had around
10 percentage points higher share of closed procedures in 2012, 2015 and 2016.
Figure 5: Average share of closed procedures by year
Geographical analysis
Construction company’s integrity risk score was higher by 6 percentage points in Prague and by 8
percentage points in the Southeast region compared to the benchmark contracts (Figure 6). Almost half
of Construction company’s estimated procurement income comes from these two regions (48% from
Prague and 1% from the Southeast region). The company has a significantly lower risk score in most
other regions: for example, 8 and 15 percentage points lower risks in the Northwest and Southwest
regions (as well as in contracts that have not been attributed to a region, which is shown as ‘NA’ in Figure
6).
Figure 6: Tender-X integrity risk scores by region
TENDER-X INTEGRITY RISK REPORT
19 Aug 2021 4
Product market analysis
Among the most important markets for Construction company2, road construction works, carriageway
resurfacing works, and foundation and surface works for highways and roads are among the highest risk
activities. They had 14, 9 and 9 percentage points higher risks compared to benchmark contracts,
respectively. These three markets provided 67% of Construction company’s estimated overall
procurement income. A significant portion of tenders could only be categorized into the high-level
category construction (22% of Construction company’s all contract value), where Construction company
had 8 percentage points lower integrity risks than its competitors.
Figure 7: Tender-X integrity risk score by biggest product markets
2 The 6 biggest markets, in terms of contract number, account for 648 out of the total of 1,226 contracts Construction company
won since 2006.
TENDER-X INTEGRITY RISK REPORT
19 Aug 2021 5
Buyer analysis
The average risk score of tenders awarded by Construction company’s most frequently contracted
buyers ranges between 62 and 88, that is higher than its average risk score of 55 (Figure 8).3 The contracts
won from all except Buyer D had 3-17 percentage points higher integrity risks scores compared to the
contracts these buyers awarded to other companies (Benchmark risk).4 For example, Buyer A awarded
contracts to Construction company with an average risk score of 88, that is 33 points higher than the
company’s average risk, and also considerably higher than the average risk score of those contracts
awarded to other companies by Buyer A, that is 76. As Table 1 shows, Construction company account for
a significant share of its buyers’ total spending. For example, they are awarded roughly 25% of the total
estimated spending of Buyer A (roughly EUR 3 million awarded to Construction company, while EUR 8.6
million to everyone else).
Figure 8: Tender-X integrity risk scores by largest buyers
Buyer Construction company Benchmark group
Buyer A 3,026,969 8,621,779
Buyer B 1,540,984 7,646,558
Buyer C 12,010,060 65,961,390
Buyer D 1,174,975 7,988,709
Buyer E 1,291,167 7,379,867
Buyer F 959,685 6,898,378
Table 1: Estimated total contract value won to the most frequently contracted buyer of Construction Company (EUR)
3 Figure 8 shows the average tender integrity scores of Construction company’s six most frequently contracted buyers. They have
awarded 522 contracts to Construction company since 2006. 4 The benchmark contracts for each buyer are contracts with the same product category as Construction company won (mostly
construction related works) by the same buyer.
TENDER-X INTEGRITY RISK REPORT
19 Aug 2021 6
3. Public procurement profile
Contract value
Construction company won 1,226 contracts worth of EUR 1.2 billion in the period from January of 2006
to January of 2019, which makes it one of the biggest players in the market5. Its average contract size is
EUR 1.7 million which slightly decreased over the last ten years. It won less contracts in the last 3 years
compared to the period before 2016.
Figure 9: Yearly contract value and number of contracts won by Construction company
Geographical breakdown
Construction company won the majority of its public contracts from Prague: 48% of total contract value.
Northeast and Central-Moravia accounts for 11-13% of its procurement income (while there is no data
for 20% of its contracts, indicated by the ‘NA’ column in Figure 10). The reason for this geographical
breakdown appears to be that most of Construction company’s buyers are based in Prague: 37% of its
procurement income comes from national agencies, 21% from regional authorities, 18% from public
bodies and 14% from utilities.
Figure 10: Construction company’s total procurement income by region
5 For more information on the dataset and methodology, see the Notes.
TENDER-X INTEGRITY RISK REPORT
19 Aug 2021 7
4. Notes
Risk indicators
The Tender-X integrity risk score quantifies the likelihood of anti-competitive practices that aim to favour
a specific company. Our underlying indicator definitions are the following:
• Single bidding: a single-bidder contract refers to a contract that received only a single bid during the
tendering process.
• Missing call for tender: Call for Tenders publication is not required for certain procedures. However, public
buyers often fail to put out these publications when regulations would require it, which might signal a
deliberately anti-competitive practice.
• Closed procedure: non-open procedures can be only used under exceptional circumstances or if the tender
is low value in most jurisdictions. For example, a natural disaster or recurrently unsuccessful open tendering
procedures can be a basis of conducting a negotiated procedure where only invited companies can bid.
However, these legitimate reasons for non-open procedures can be misused in practice.
• Short notice: Companies can only participate in public tenders if they have sufficient time to prepare and
submit a bid. Public procurement regulation sets out the minimum bidding period length in most countries.
However, the bidding period length are often shorter in practice – based on the official deadlines published
in the procurement notices.
• Expedited bid results: unusually quick decision on awarding a public contract to a supplier (i.e. the time
between the end of bid submission and the award decision) might indicate the risk of a particularistic
relationship between a buyer and a company.
• Tender-X integrity risk score: it is the average of the 5 individual risk scores at the contract level. Company-
level scores are the weighted (contract value) averages of contract level integrity scores per company. The
Tender-X integrity risk score values range from 0 to100, with higher values indicative of higher risk of a tender
being awarded in an anti-competitive way.
Data sources and processing
Our public procurement data comes from Government Transparency Institute6 which collects and
maintains public contracting datasets across the world, from more than 50 countries. The Czech data is
collected from Věstník Veřejných Zakázek7, the official government procurement repository of the
country, and the TED (Tenders Electronic Daily), that published above-EU threshold contracts. They
publish call for tender, contract award and other tendering related announcements.
The published procurement announcements are processed in the following main steps. First,
announcements are scraped from the central website; second, individual fields are parsed into a
structured data table from each notice separately – such as buyer name, product codes, company names,
dates or contract values; third, notices that are related to the same tendering procedure are connected
based on cross-references. Fourth, a single record is created by combining the information in the related
announcements that describe the same contracting process. Fifth, the combined database goes through
standard data quality checks and where possible corrections.
Connected company names and organization name deduplication
As procurement notices do not contain unique organization identifiers, we group companies and public
organizations based on their names and addresses. We use probabilistic matching whereby we connect
similar name variants of the same organization (e.g. ‘ABC Ltd.’ and ‘abc limited’). In this report we included
data from all public tenders where the winning companies’ name and address (or city) are as listed in
Table 1 (the first column contains the different spelling variants connected in a real-life report). Due to
the lack of unique identifiers, this character-matching-based method is the best available to identify most
of the contracts won by Construction company.
6 https://digiwhist.eu/, data updates and maintenance are managed by the Government Transparency Institute (http://
govtransparency.eu/). 7 The website publishing the processed procurement notices is https://vestnikverejnychzakazek.cz.
TENDER-X INTEGRITY RISK REPORT
19 Aug 2021 8
Name Address Number of contracts
Construction company Praha 788
Construction company Brno 288
Construction company Praha 87
Construction company Praha 28
Construction company Praha 14
Construction company Pardubice 8
Construction company Praha 6
Construction company Praha- 3
Construction company Praha 2
Construction company Praha 2
Table 2: Company names, addresses and number of contracts regarded as “ Construction company” included in the analysis
Dataset and benchmark product markets
We defined the benchmark group based on contracts that are comparable to the ones won by
Construction company. First, we identified all the main product categories that Construction company
(see previous section on how we define “Construction company”) won based on the 1,226 contracts in
the dataset. Second, we only kept contracts that have the same main product categories we found for
Construction company. We list the 3-digit-level product codes in Table 2 and also show how many lower-
level product codes we have identified based on the contracts won by the Construction company. For
example, Construction company has won contracts related to installing walkways (45213316) and
construction of kindergarten buildings (45214100) – that are among the 111 different specific product
categories under the higher-level construction code of 452. Third, we have only kept contracts that are
comparable in size by keeping only those that are between the 10th and 90th percentile of the contracts
won by Construction company. Fourth, we filtered out contracts awarded to small companies that have
won less than three tenders. As a result, we keep 35,930 contracts – awarded to 1,597 companies – that
we can use as contract-level benchmarks. We calculated the average contract level indicators by company
(Figure 1). All graphs show estimations based on the largest sub-sample where the indicator values are
non-missing. For example, some Construction company or benchmark contracts do not contain the final
price or the number of bidders.
TENDER-X INTEGRITY RISK REPORT
19 Aug 2021 9
CPV code Product category Number of more detailed
CPV categories
142 Sand and clay 1
252 na 1
262 na 1
281 na 2
288 na 1
341 Motor vehicles 1
349 Miscellaneous transport equipment and spare parts 2
422 Machinery for food, beverage and tobacco processing and
associated parts 1
433 Construction machinery and equipment 1
441 Construction materials and associated items 2
442 Structural products 3
450 Construction work 1
451 Site preparation work 10
452 Works for complete or part construction and civil engineering
work
111
453 Building installation work 6
454 Building completion work 6
502 Repair, maintenance and associated services related to
aircraft, railways, roads and marine equipment
1
505 Repair and maintenance services for pumps, valves, taps and
metal containers and machinery
1
651 Water distribution and related services 1
701 Real estate services with own property 1
713 Engineering services 2
742 Na 1
770 Agricultural, forestry, horticultural, aquacultural and
apicultural services
1
904 Sewage services 1
Table 3: Product markets where Construction company won contracts
TENDER-X INTEGRITY RISK REPORT
19 Aug 2021 10
Disclaimer
This report uses publicly available procurement data collected by Tender-X. We apply several additional
steps of data cleaning (e.g. harmonizing prices), use machine-learning algorithms to identify all records
belonging to the same organization, create benchmark categories and calculate tailor-made, contract
and organizational-level risk indicators.
We cannot, however, resolve data errors coming from erroneous source data or imperfect data parsing.
Public procurement announcements often contain incomplete information. Public organizations
sometimes fail to fill out the forms properly which leads to missing prices, number of bids or
miscategorized product categories (e.g. too wide or too narrow). In addition, collecting data from
procurement announcements is a complicated exercise. For example, multiple publications need to be
connected to each tender, which is not feasible when accurate tender identifiers are missing.
Furthermore, as data is collected from several differently structured announcements, certain data
collection errors may arise. Conclusively, all statistics and indicators in this report should be regarded as
estimations.
Further reporting options
This report focuses on a limited set of targeted
integrity risk indicators. If you are interested in more
analytics, we can provide tailored, in-depth
organisational and market risk assessment meeting
your needs.
First, this can include data improvements, detailed
comparisons with other market players, buyer risk
assessment and advanced benchmarking.
Second, we can provide a qualitative risk assessment
based on desktop research and interviews.
Contact the Tender-X team at [email protected]
