Procurement policy of the Ministry of the Interior and the National Police Agency

• Conclusions
• Recommendations
• Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations' response

On 20 December 2005 the President of the House of Representatives asked the Court of Audit to examine the National Police Services Agency (KLPD)'s procurement policy (Permanent Committee on the Interior and Kingdom Relations 2005). On 23 February 2006 we agreed to grant this request.

Between March 2006 and February 2007 the Court of Audit looked into the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations' tendering policy, in general and, in particular, that of the KLPD.

The House of Representatives requested the audit because of the problems associated with the procurement of new helicopters for the KLPD. On 1 March 2001 the KLPD had awarded a contract for eight new helicopters to Helifly NV. This contract was eventually terminated on 1 March 2005, as Helifly was unable to supply helicopters conforming to the contractually specified requirements.

Conclusions

Despite the many efforts made since 1997 to improve the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations' procurement procedures, including tendering, there are still shortcomings that give rise to regularity and efficiency risks. By 2006 the situation had improved, in comparison to 1997, but not all difficulties had been addressed. In general the ministry follows the procurement procedures that are in force. Unfortunately, however, there is no obligation to involve the Procurement and Tendering Centre (IAC). This means that, although expertise is available, there is no watertight guarantee that procurement rules will be followed. The contracts register, and contract management, give particular cause for concern. Moreover, in 2006 there were two incidences in which European tendering rules were not correctly observed.

In the case of the KLPD, in 2006, despite efforts to improve procurement procedures, there were also still problems. Not all contracts were recorded in the contracts register, and the Ministry Audit Department (DAD) observed that there was the risk of new mistakes being made with European tendering.

We are of the opinion that the specified helicopter requirements (audit question 4, section 1.2) were so strict that in 2001 a contract was signed for aircraft that did not yet actually exist. They still had to be developed. Once the evaluation of tenders had taken place, only one of the six suppliers originally interested in entering into a contract said they would be able to produce the helicopter, indicating that future developments would make this possible. This should, in our opinion, have alerted the KLPD to the fact that the requirements were perhaps not entirely realistic. Criticism of the procurement of the helicopters did not reach central level, or reached it too late, partly because there was inadequate understanding at central level of how procurement was processing at local level.

Up

Recommendations

The Court of Audit recommends that observance of the central rules on procurement be made mandatory and that suitable measures be taken in the event of non-observance. In the case of risky orders involving considerable uncertainties we recommend that an exit strategy be established beforehand by the contracting authority, and that the progress be regularly monitored. This may require the involvement of independent experts.

Up

Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations' response

The minister has responded on her own behalf, and on that of the KLPD. In her opinion the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations and the KLPD are now capable of correctly implementing tendering policy and are in control. In 2006, there were no instances in which the KLPD failed to comply with legislation, European or otherwise. In order to further guarantee the quality of procurement, the minister has decided to make the involvement of the IAC in European tendering obligatory. She does, however, believe that the obligatory involvement of the IAC in all tendering would be too drastic a measure, given the remaining risks in procurement procedures.

As regards the KLPD helicopter incident, the minister does not agree that there was inadequate understanding at central level of the implementation of the project. Not only were delays apparently reported in regular talks between the regional police force manager and the KLPD chief of police, it would also appear that ministry management was regularly and promptly informed of the state of affairs. The minister concludes that the handling of the award of the contract was careful and fully process-based, even though in this case the outcome was not successful.

Up