Crowd of people walking in the street

Public Procurement

Romania

Contracting authorities and bidders in local, EU and international procurement procedures, need to rely on legal advice informed by extensive experience on both sides of the process. Public procurement legislation has undergone some significant changes in Central and Eastern Europe in recent years. Despite legislation moving closer towards harmonisation with the EU, many practical challenges remain.

CMS has worked on scores of complex projects in the region over the last two decades and fields specialist public procurement lawyers across 15 full-service offices. Our lawyers offer a powerful combination of local expertise and insight coupled with international know-how and perspective on public procurement issues. We can guide you through complex public tender issues, from the formation and building of bidding consortia, concession contracts and sophisticated PPP projects, through to compliance, investigations and procurement-related disputes and litigation.

In Romania, we work with our clients across the full-range of public procurement services, including assistance in investigations, state aid law and challenging tender decisions or processes before administrative tribunals in Romania. Our specialist procurement lawyers take a thorough approach to legal detail and can also stand back and see the bigger, commercial picture, to deliver the best results.

Our specialists have long-standing sector expertise across core industries including infrastructure, lifesciences/healthcare, transport, and technology, media and communications. This approach means we can resolve your complex public tender issues, including formation and building of bidding consortia, protection of confidential information, anti-trust matters, evaluations, specific rules around framework agreements, concession contracts and complex PPP projects. We can also assist regarding feedback and debriefing and how to approach different regulated tender procedures. Additionally, we provide support before tribunals and courts across Europe or in front of the European Commission.

Read more Read less

Feed

Show only
15/01/2019
European Court of Justice rules in fa­vour of Italy’s Lotto con­ces­sion...
On 19 Decem­ber 2018, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) con­firmed that Italy’s “sole con­ces­sion­aire mod­el” for man­aging the con­ces­sion for its com­pu­ter­ised na­tion­al lot­tery and re­lated fixed-odds nu­mer­ic­al games (the Lotto) and the con­di­tions for its tender.
27/11/2017
The Be­ne­fits of Joint Cross Bor­der Pub­lic Pro­cure­ment
Since the European Com­mis­sion’ feas­ib­il­ity study on Joint Cross-Bor­der Pub­lic Pro­cure­ment (“JCBPP”) was re­leased in March 2017 there has been in­creas­ing mo­mentum for con­tract­ing au­thor­it­ies (“CA”) to or­gan­ise JCBPPs.
30/10/2017
ECJ Rules on when a com­pany owned by a con­tract­ing au­thor­ity is gov­erned...
IN­TRO­DUC­TION A re­cent rul­ing of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has con­firmed that a wholly owned sub­si­di­ary of a con­tract­ing au­thor­ity can it­self be re­garded as a ‘body gov­erned by pub­lic law’ and there­fore sub­ject to the pro­cure­ment rules, even where.
04/10/2017
Ap­plic­able threshold for the ob­lig­a­tion to con­sider the di­vi­sion of...
Art­icle 58 of the Law of 17 June 2016 on pub­lic pro­cure­ment re­quires all con­tract­ing au­thor­it­ies to con­sider the di­vi­sion of con­tracts in­to lots and, where the con­tract­ing au­thor­ity de­cides that it would not be ap­pro­pri­ate to di­vide the con­tract in­to lots,.
27/04/2017
Pub­lic pro­cure­ment sub­con­tract­ing: re­quir­ing con­tract­or to ex­ecute...
As you will re­call, the Court of Justice ruled in a judg­ment of 14 Ju­ly 2016 (C-406/14) that a con­tract­ing au­thor­ity is not al­lowedto re­quire, by a gen­er­al stip­u­la­tion in the tender spe­cific­a­tions of a pub­lic con­tract, that the fu­ture con­tract­or of that con­tract.
30/01/2017
Ten­der­ers must com­ply with re­quire­ments for ex­clu­sion grounds at date...
On 10 Novem­ber 2016, the Court of Justice rendered an in­ter­est­ing de­cision (in Ciclat Soc. coop. v. Con­sip SpA, C-199/15) re­gard­ing the ap­plic­a­tion of ex­clu­sion grounds. In this par­tic­u­lar case, a ten­der­er did not com­ply with its ob­lig­a­tions of so­cial se­cur­ity.
22/11/2016
Dis­pute res­ol­u­tion in the con­struc­tion in­dustry: a new pro­ced­ure has...
Dis­putes of­ten arise dur­ing con­struc­tion pro­jects. In these cases the cli­ent and the con­struct­or face a unique chal­lenge: how to settle the dis­pute without delay­ing the pro­ject and without adding ex­tra costs? For such dis­putes the Ar­bit­ra­tion Board for the.