Criticism of the Swedish Maritime Administration’s helicopter purchases

The Swedish Maritime Administration has been criticised regarding aspects such as the lack of documentation of meetings with potential suppliers. The tender documentation also breaches the public procurement regulations on three instances.

The tender documentation entirely lacked contract conditions such as conditions regarding guarantees and termination. These conditions were drawn up by AgustaWestland, the supplier who won the procurement. Failing to advertise these terms of contract is a breach of the public procurement legislation. In the technical specifications of the helicopters reference was also made to a specific trade mark and type of a searchlight and a winch included in the equipment of the helicopters.

“Technical specifications shall not refer to a specific trade mark or type,” explains Dan Sjöblom, Director-General of the Swedish Competition Authority. “Such requirements rule out other suppliers of equivalent or better products. This thereby eliminates competition.”

The Authorities investigation of the Swedish Maritime Administration’s helicopter purchase also reveals a number of inappropriate contacts between representatives from the Swedish Maritime Administration and AgustaWestland. In addition, there was a failure to document what was discussed at these meetings, which is particularly remarkable. The Authority also takes a serious view of the fact that the Swedish Maritime Administration had one-sided contacts with AgustaWestland during and shortly before the contract notice was published in 2012.

“Obtaining knowledge of the market ahead of carrying out procurement is essential for sound procurement processes, but the contracting authority must ensure that no supplier benefits from or is disadvantaged by these preparations,” continues Mr Sjöblom.

A contracting authority must treat all potential suppliers the same way. Not documenting what is discussed at meetings – especially in the case of one-sided contacts with a potential supplier – is highly inappropriate.

Read the decision, dnr 306/2015 (in Swedish)