Public Procurement Service Ensures Fairness and Reliability of Evaluations through Triple Management of Evaluation Committee Members

The Public Procurement Service (PPS) secures fairness and reliability in procurement evaluations through a ‘triple management’ system for evaluation committee members. This triple management focuses on strengthening preemptive controls to prevent collusion between evaluators and companies, separate from post-exclusion measures taken by investigative authorities against evaluators found problematic.

On the 8th, PPS announced that it will officially operate a triple management system starting this month, consisting of ▲Evaluation History Management System ▲Evaluation Committee Monitoring Group ▲Evaluation Committee Pre-Contact Reporting Center.

The Evaluation History Management System accumulates evaluation data of committee members and companies to continuously monitor and analyze cases suspected of unfair collusion (abnormal signs) between evaluators and companies.

The core function is to derive fairness-related evaluation data, such as whether an evaluator gives excessive scores to a specific company or shows a significantly different tendency in awarding first place compared to other evaluators, and to manage evaluation histories by comprehensively assessing the evaluator’s diligence and expertise indicators.

For evaluators showing abnormal signs, the responsible personnel conduct additional reviews, followed by related procedures such as deliberation by the Fair Procurement Bureau to determine whether unfair evaluation occurred. PPS explained that evaluators suspected of unfair evaluation will face measures such as suspension of negotiations or exclusion of mutual negotiations between the evaluator and specific companies.

The Evaluation Committee Monitoring Group functions to closely examine the fairness, diligence, and expertise of evaluators. Some companies (evaluation subjects) have previously filed complaints about unfair evaluations, insincere attitudes, or unprofessional remarks by evaluators encountered on-site.

To resolve such complaints, PPS formed an ‘Evaluation Committee Monitoring Group’ consisting of 25 members, including staff from specialized evaluation institutions such as the Korea Institute for Advancement of Technology Planning and Evaluation and public officials from demand agencies. The monitoring group will be tasked with oversight and checks to ensure reasonable evaluations acceptable to companies.

Starting this month, the Evaluation Committee Monitoring Group will participate in evaluations related to design, construction, and works in the public housing sector, as well as in the designation review of excellent procurement goods and innovative products. They will monitor evaluators’ remarks and attitudes across three categories: fairness, expertise, and diligence.

Evaluators receiving low scores in monitoring results will face measures such as negotiation restrictions and dismissal, while those with excellent evaluations will be rewarded with incentives, including commendations from the PPS Administrator and priority selection when forming separate dedicated evaluation committees such as technical advisory committees.

PPS will also newly establish an ‘Evaluation Committee Pre-Contact Reporting Center’ where pre-contact between evaluators and companies, bribery, and related acts can be reported.

The reporting center was established as a post-measure following a recent prosecutorial investigation into an evaluator who received bribes from a company due to personal misconduct. PPS plans to activate a reporting culture to prevent unfair pre-contact acts between evaluators and companies that could undermine the fairness and reliability of procurement evaluations.

Reportable acts include subtly informing companies of one’s status as an evaluator while demanding money or entertainment, and acts that make companies aware of their status as evaluation subjects via SNS, text messages, emails, etc. After review by the evaluation department, PPS intends to take strong actions such as suspension of negotiations, dismissal of evaluators, and referral to police investigations for reports judged to have concrete evidence and circumstances.

Im Gi-geun, Administrator of PPS, stated, “The process of selecting the optimal contractor through fair and objective evaluation is the fundamental basis of public procurement. Reflecting the fact that PPS has taken over evaluation tasks in the public housing sector from LH this year, we will firmly establish the basics of procurement evaluation.”

He added, “With the operation of the triple management system for evaluators, we will ensure that fair and transparent procurement evaluations take root in the field.”

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.