This redflag indicates risk if technical specifications are copied from the bidding documents or are incomplete AND/OR the manufacturer’s authorization is missing, outdated or inadequate AND/OR The bid does not match procurement requirements (e.g., in terms of quantity, quality, qualifications) AND/OR Pages of a bid are missing or not signed (when required)
This indicator is contradictory to the prescriptions of the EU Public Procurement Directive or the Hungarian Public Procurement Law, but according to the authors is in line with a corrupt rent extraction logic, since contract awards are annulled and relaunched more often when there were multiple bidders .The indicator's value is set 0, if the contract was awarded in a non-annulled procedure and 1, if the contract was awarded in a procedure annulled, but relaunched. Both annulations by the procuring entities or courts are taken into consideration.
Not publishing the call for tenders in the official journal increases the probability of single received and valid bids and the winner’s contract share in every regression. Therefore the indicator's value is set 0, if the call for tender was published in official journal and 1, if no call for tender was published in official journal
Modifying call for tenders allows for excluding unwanted bidders by changing eligibility criteria once the interested bidders are known. Therefore the indicator's value is set 0, if call for tenders are NOT modified and 1, if call for tenders are modified.
According to the developers of CRI, contract lengthening suggests that the issuer corruptly favour a well-connected company, potentially repeatedly. This indicator contains a relative figure that shows relative contract extension (days of extension/days of contract length).
According to the developers of CRI, contract modification(s) suggests that the procuring entity corruptly favour a well-connected company, potentially repeatedly. Therefore the indicator's values is set 0 if the contract was not modified during delivery and 1, if the contract was modified during delivery.
According to the developers of CRI, contract value increase suggests that the issuer corruptly favour a well-connected company, potentially repeatedly. This indicator also contains a relative figure that shows relative contract price increase (change in contract value/original, contracted contract value). CRCB provides no further clarifications on the indicator, besides statistical data on validation.
This numeric redflag-component is part of an index (CRI) that indicates risk risk of grand corruption. Developers rely on the scheme that in order to award the contract to a "specific" bidder, the procuring entity - if it could not deter all but one bidder from submissing bids - excludes the bids of all unwanted bidders on administrative or formal grounds or unfairly assesses the bids to favour a particular bidder. Therefore the value is set to 1, if 1 bid was NOT excluded, and 0, if more than 1 bid NOT excluded. Input indicators of the model, correlate with this output.
Single valid bid contracts make it easier for procuring entities to repeatedly award contracts to the same well-connected company, therefore the indicator's value is set 0, if at least two bids were not excluded and 1, if all but one bid excluded.